Daily Archives: May 3, 2023


I am working with Jianpin Chen and Maggie Lin as a group. We are going to work on project 2, which is about Wikipedia and red name women. We are focused on the harassment and hindrance female editors had faced which led to the overall climate of exclusion of women on Wikipedia. We are planning to use podcasts to present our research. I think podcasts can give a different perspective than an essay. People had to spend time reading an essay, but on a podcast, people can listen to it while doing other things. It is a convenient way for people to get information in a short amount of time. 

Podcasts might not have all the detailed information, but it wouldn’t be too informative which would make people feel bored. It might raise the audience’s interest and curiosity which leads them to do more research. The difficult part might be explaining the topic clearly and concisely in a limited time. We had to let the audiences understand the fundamental information with limited information given and within a short amount of time. We might need to do more research on this topic to plan what we are going to talk about. Some challenges might be the information is not conveyed clearly and grabs the audience’s attention. We can meet these challenges by using more tone to express feelings and trying to convey messages with limited information.

Posted in Creative Remix, Proposal | Comments Off on Proposal

Creative Remix Project 3 Proposal

For Creative Remix Project 3, I am working as a group with two students. For this project, we discussed and decided to do a podcast audio reconstructing the topic of systematic gender bias we had researched for Project 2, and going further, the toxic environment toward and hostility female editors had experienced that drive them away from the community.

In my prediction, the podcast video compared to the research-based essay should be less formal, and the messages should be told in a way that is easy to understand for the audience instead of leaving a bunch of information for the audience to digest themselves. The source for this podcast should be more based on the personal experience of the female editors, and the blogs of the formal editors. Providing evidence to support an argument is an important part of writing an argumentive essay, but this doesn’t work in a podcast. We discussed that it’s important to catch the audience’s attention in podcasts, but just simply throwing a bunch of statistical data and long quotes to audiences is no different from killing the audience’s interest in continuing to listen. We plan to start a normal conversation about our experience with Wikipedia and bring up the systematic gender bias that exists in the front end of Wikipedia reflected on the low proportion of female editors. Eventually, bring up the female editors that experienced harassment. The primary reason we decided to choose this topic is that this is an ongoing issue in recent years that was largely discussed on the internet, which means it’s easy to find evidence of the existing issue and the podcast we created can contribute to addressing this issue by increasing the awareness of the issue. Among all the mediums we could decide on, Podcaste is easier to arouse the attention of the audience. In addition, the tone presenter presenting their message in the podcast can better connect the audience to the problem compared to just plain text.

Posted in Creative Remix, Proposal | 1 Comment

My 7 Day Log: A Personal Battle

Day 1: I was very nervous about this project, not knowing exactly what to expect from it as I’ve never done anything like it before. I started by creating my wikipedia account under the username “MotionsickSpaceman”. I hoped the masculinity of the username would allow me to be seen as a man and therefore my edits were more likely to be left alone. Then I started becoming familiar with the Wikipedia Adventure.

Day 2: I felt even more discouraged this day. Wikipedia looks very “code-y” when you edit on it. Everything is in colons and brackets and its really confusing. Honestly, I quit early this day.

Day 3: I started to see a glimmer of hope this day. I went back to the Wikipedia adventure as it was what I was most comfortable with and found a button that makes the text box look like English again instead of R2D2 language. I logged out soon after discovering this.

Day 4: I spent this day becoming even more familiar with the editing side of Wikipedia. I edited Cardi B’s wikipedia page with something really simple. I remember Prof. Perry telling us about a librarian at BMCC who added the college to the body of the wikipedia page. This is when I realized that it was not in the info card and decided to add it. I also tried to add a picture to Flo Milli’s Wikipedia page but had no idea what I was doing.

Day 5: I felt a little more confident this day and attempted to begin creating the wikipedia page for Ayanda Candice Sibanda. I tried to add simple things like her name, age, where she was born and what she did because I had little information on anything else. After many attempts I eventually left it in my drafts because it looked ugly.

Day 6: I felt bad about abandoning the project after talking to someone else about the Women in Red project. I spent the day telling myself I would return to it, only to put it off several more times and procrastinate some more. Eventually, much later that night, I returned to it and made a little more effort. This is when I found a button that made my wikipedia page a little easier to see and understand.

Day 7: I still wasn’t confident in my article and so I decided to do some more research. I searched for what felt like ages but could not find any real information about my Woman in Red. I spent the time dedicated to the project accumulating as many sources as I could, most of which were from sites with a Zimbabwean or Australian domain.

Posted in Research Based Argument, Wikipedia Process Journal | 3 Comments