Week15 -- My Wikipedia Editing Experience This Week --WU WENHAO

WU WENHAO 2021080464

This week, I had a small but important realization: Wikipedia is not the place to prove a point.

As a university student, I’m used to writing essays where I’m encouraged to analyze, interpret, and present my own views. Even when summarizing research, there’s usually a section where I’m expected to say what I think. So when I started contributing to Wikipedia, I carried that mindset with me—without even realizing it.

It wasn’t until I edited an article about a social issue in China that someone pointed out my writing included “original research.” At first, I didn’t understand. I hadn’t made anything up. I used real sources, added citations, and even checked my grammar twice. But then I looked again, and I saw it: phrases like “this shows a clear failure of policy implementation” or “the government’s reluctance can be interpreted as…” Those aren’t facts. They’re interpretations—my interpretations.

That’s when I truly started to understand what Wikipedia means by “no original research.” It’s not just about avoiding made-up claims; it’s about not drawing new conclusions, even if they seem obvious to me. Wikipedia wants editors to report what reliable sources say—not add to what those sources mean.

Similarly, the concept of “neutral point of view” (NPOV) took some time to sink in. Neutral doesn’t mean lifeless or vague. It means showing all significant viewpoints fairly, and avoiding language that favors one side. But as a student, I was trained to build an argument. That’s a hard habit to unlearn.

Over time, I’ve learned to shift my role—from someone who argues for a position to someone who presents what is known about a topic. Instead of writing “This policy failed to reduce housing prices,” I now write “According to a 2023 study by [author], housing prices remained high despite the policy’s implementation.” It’s a subtle difference, but one that matters deeply in a collaborative encyclopedia.

I still think writing with a voice is important. But on Wikipedia, the “voice” comes from clarity, not opinion. And as someone who often uses AI tools to help improve my English, I’ve realized that tone matters even more when you’re trying to sound neutral but still human.

Looking back, I see Wikipedia not just as a writing challenge, but a mindset shift. It’s taught me to ask: Am I informing, or am I persuading? And in doing so, it’s made me a more careful writer—not just online, but in all my academic work too.