User:Anushkabg/subpage

Wikipedia Reflection

Timeless. It not only serves as the title of the first article I contributed to as a newcomer, but also epitomizes the nature of Wikipedia. Actually, ‘Timeless (TV series)’ is the original title of the article; a title-naming attribute to the television series topic genre. It was a policy I discovered after having encountered basic guidelines of Wikipedia regarding the particular genre. Rudimentary guidelines and policies were requirements that we, as students, were to implicitly learn during the process of this participatory experience – akin to the RTFM notion. A truly newcomer experience. Wikipedia, while an academically valuable and refreshing experience, was possibly one of the few online communities that demanded an effort from my end to understand the dynamics of this space.

It is a far cry from social networks such as Facebook and Reddit that are intuitive in nature. There are no set guidelines to participate in such spaces. Whereas, for the first time I had to watch tutorials to enter an online space in order to grasp the basics. Initially, the technicalities seemed challenging to operate. Similar to gaming communities, newcomers and inexperienced gamers first need to learn the controls in order to begin their gaming experiences. One of the primary issues posed in the case of Wikipedia was referencing. As an inexperienced editor who isn’t very tech savvy, it took longer than required to learn the language. The difference between gaming communities and Wikipedia is the factor of motivation. Amateur gamers are intrinsically inclined towards participating in the community. This may potentially enhance their ability to grasp the techniques necessary for navigating around their virtual realm. If it hadn’t been a class requirement, I wouldn’t have been motivated otherwise to enter the Wikipedia community.

This boils down to the intertwined concepts of motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) and persuasion. Wikipedia in general doesn’t seem to embody any principles of persuasion, as cited Cialdini’s (2001) ‘Science of Persuasion’. Although, one that stood out in particular was the sense of authority. A structural hierarchy of editors seems to exist within this space, although it is not easily noticeable. I discovered there has been one Wikipedian overseeing daily activities on the article. This user seems to be experienced in facilitating the Talk page on the ‘Timeless ( TV series)’ article, edits other members’ contributions, regulates the overall flow of content, and ensures Wikipedia policies aren’t violated. Therefore I assume this user is an experienced member qualified to be commander-in-chief, given their frequent engagement and moderation.

This authoritative principle initially made me feel at ease about inserting my edits and additional content, simply because I assumed I would be guided if I violated any expectations. Indirectly, this sense of authority may have persuaded me to confidently shift my content from my sandbox to the main space. I was in turn motivated to make more edits on the main article page. However, this slight intrinsic inclination occurred only after officially joining the community. This suggests that there was no initial drive to participate till it became a necessity. Would my willingness to contribute depend upon extrinsic motivators that Wikipedia could offer? It is highly likely. Unfortunately as per the motivation trade-off, I would be less intrinsically inclined due to the potential availability of rewards and incentives by the community. Nonetheless, I wouldn’t have been able to indulge in this experience if it hadn’t been a requirement. Besides the persuasive and motivational elements (or lack thereof), the enculturation process of this Wiki culture requires one to test the waters within this space. We need to convert newcomer knowledge to implicit knowledge in order to assimilate.

I developed an understanding of Facebook’s social dynamics faster than I could even begin to comprehend the way Wikipedia functions. It seems to be targeted towards an esoteric audience; those whose interests lie within this field of academia. Although interactions are visible on talk pages, conversations are primarily task-oriented (at least from what I noticed). In a collaborative culture such as this, shouldn’t the authority figures taking the initiative to oversee the article be encouraging other members to collectively focus on goal-setting? For instance, unanimously (or through consensus) setting content or referencing goals for sections of the article. Wouldn’t it increase efficiency, productivity and maybe enhance intrinsic motivation among members? Particularly in attracting newcomers? My guess is it would be effective to a certain extent.

Speaking of attracting newcomers, as one myself I was left thoroughly confused by the lack of interaction with me on my article’s talk page. After being under the impression that one of the primary purposes of the community is collaborative effort, I noticed barely any guidance, direction or social engagement regarding the ‘Timeless (TV series)’ article. An incident I recount is of the responsiveness and interaction I needed to be educated about Timeless Wikia policies I was yet unaware of. This would have helped me revise my content for the article. Timeless, a newly introduced NBC series, revolves around the dynamics of an unusual team of a history professor, soldier and scientist instructed to capture a time-traveling criminal set to alter significant events in American history. I inserted additional content for each section and thanked editors who revised my material. However, I added a music section to the article that was erased by its most frequent editor/moderator. I discovered the reason for eliminating the section by this moderator’s comment on his edit –  a sub-policy pertaining to the Timeless article about not involving a music section.

I addressed this user on the talk page (under 'Music' header) to further discuss the noteworthiness of music on Timeless. However, I received no response. Other members received responses from this moderator for their comments on the talk page. Nonetheless, after having learned the purpose of Good Faith Collaboration, I decided to assume good faith. Although, it makes me question several things. Whether by the simple virtue of being a newcomer is what may have driven the user away. Whether I was more clueless about the article’s policies than I knew and was expected to RTFM. Whether my language wasn’t up to the standards of other experienced Wikipedians. Whether I deviated from a norm I wasn’t cognizant of. I don’t question the unreceptiveness but rather am trying to deconstruct the vagueness I feel exists in this particular instance. As Garfinkel deduces from his ethnomethodological studies, norms are made visible upon violation. Given the notion that in a definite system like Wikipedia, norms would appear clear after having observed the functions and interactions of the community. I expected the vagueness of norms to be a situation more prevalent within social networking sites. However, it seems it is similar in Wikipedia too (at least from personal experience). The lack of reaction doesn’t help determine whether or not I breached a subtle norm. Therefore, if I really did violate one, wouldn’t I be able to notice? Wouldn’t the norm be made visible?

This all suggests a newcomer trying to fit in. It also made me reflect upon Kraut and Resnick’s (2011) design claim from ‘Building Successful Online Communities’ –  “community influence on rule-making increases compliance with the rules’ (p. 52). Wikipedians appear to thrive on that notion. There were a few editors who had diminished the music section before it was entirely eliminated. They were simply abiding by the Timeless Wikia policy of ‘no music’. It exemplifies the kind of compliance alluded to in Kraut and Resnick’s work. Others’ editing activity influences newcomers to instantly conform. And as per Social Learning theory, I tried to model my editing behavior upon those of experienced members collaborating on the same article.

But I certainly feel merely emulating those behaviors and expectations aren’t enough – interactions help guide a newcomer into dismissing the feeling of entering unknown territory as an alien figure. Although the Wikipedia community hasn’t particularly persuaded or encouraged me as consumer to contribute (barring the presence of class requirements), it hasn’t driven me away from the platform either. As a newcomer, it feels engaging especially when you participate in a collaboration of a topic of interest. Overall, it was a necessary experience to learn the dynamics of a widely popular and well-reputed online community compared to other platforms.

Word Count: 1363

References

Cialdini, R. B. (2001, February). The Science of Persuasion. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from http://digitalintelligencetoday.com/downloads/CialdiniSciAmerican.pdf

Kraut, R. E., Resnick, P., & Kiesler, S. (2011). Building successful online communities:

Evidence-based social design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.