User:Anussbaumer/5% Writing, 95%: Wiki'd Sweet

After it's all been said and done, I finally feel comfortable in calling myself a true Wikipedian. It's a strange concept to me now because I can so clearly remember searching for courses and reading the class description and thinking: "hmm, a class where I earn grades for contributing to a site I use almost everyday. Cool." And the rest is history. Well, not entirely, for I think that I will remain a participatory user for good. User retention: one of the many determinant factors in what constitutes a good online community that we've learned this semester, and one that I can see in a new light through Wikipedia. It is a community worth continuing to be an active part of; that is, it has value.

Thinking back, my first foray into Wikipedia was so long ago that I can't quite remember what it could have been that I was searching for, but I do remember recognizing the fact that 'anyone could edit it' and that because of that it was sacrilegious to use in middle/high school classes. However, this once thought 'ever-so-corruptible' democratized den of data has been demystified; it has turned in my eyes into a regal realm of reciprocity! Allow me to persuade thee to hark back to the wee beginning of the semester, when so many of the coveted terms used now were not yet socially validated by our peers' seemingly pervasive knowledge–it is this social validation that persuades a large percentage of participation, both on and off the field. I remember analyzing the various A/B tests Wikipedia implemented in order to maximize user donations and noting that the two most effective means of persuading people to contribute big bucks were social validation and reciprocity: monkey see, monkey do; monkey pick bugs, monkey pick bugs. I use sophomoric and terse analogies, but it is these forms of persuasion that I believe fuel the engine that is Wikipedia. In fact, the only time I ever donated ($3 at that) was when I paused and simply imagined all of the hundreds of thousands of people who have donated parts of their souls, not in measly money, but precious time! The immediacy of the urge to 'pay it back' was substantial enough to remind me of my PayPal password; the desire to reciprocate in some way with all of my fellow Wikipedians burned the carpet of my heart. It was this same driving force of quid pro quo, of pass it on, that encouraged me to contribute not only my time to this powerful site, but my very spirit.

Now, it might seem that I'm being a bit lofty, maybe even a dash affected, but the truth is that I do feel these deep feelings and concerns for this wickedly digital mistress I never thought I would have (for I have never thought that I would ever have a mistress). The bite had me, and I was committed, which brings me to another crucial point: Identity-based commitment occurs when people are more committed to the group as a whole rather than specific individuals. The bond between Wikipedia and its underlings is just that: identity based. In fact, this relationship is an exemplary example, for it establishes Kraut & Resnick's claim that "making group members anonymous will foster identity-based commitment" (p.87), though here pseudo-anonymity is the case, but also it demonstrates a community whose users are committed entirely to it seemingly thanklessly and apparently facelessly. Jimmy Wales is but the only known face out of this humble website that only so happens to be the 7th most visited in the world. Why are people so committed? Because someone has to; knowledge is needed, as it is power; people are grateful for and appreciative of contributors without feeling that pitted sense of indebtedness; there is an established culture governed lightly, moderated rarely, welcoming always. Not only are members congenial, but they have the best intentions in mind, generally speaking of course. For instance: within the first few weeks, some anonymous good samaritan went out of her way to leave this helpful comment. I felt like I was in Norway.

To me, Wikipedia is a safe haven of interesting information, and because of that, I want to add to it, build in it something new, discover and explore. The norms present are friendly, libertarian: people are nice when people are nice: reciprocity, social validation, it all promotes the idea of good faith, even karma. Odd though it is, but I get a slight sense of perfume even when I edit source; it's as if my mistress has tantalized me once more with her feral scent of succulent knowledge–which brings me to the crux of my affair, and I think most people's affair, with Wikipie. Knowledge is power–more or less–and we take that trickle of power pouring forth from the spigot of the internet more or less for granted. Even fifteen years ago it would seem an incomprehensible idea to simply punch a few keys into a terminal and boom: the exact information you were searching for with little to no navigation time. It's simply there, and now that it is, so many people react with a blase 'meh.' I was a bit that way before this class, callous and crude towards my open-source benefactors. But now that I have circumnavigated the globular lobe of Wiki-everything, I can fully appreciate (and be grateful for) the fact that I have the opportunity to involve myself with such a useful and societally friendly community such as this. It proves the good nature of humans, and that profit is a wholly unnecessary contingency for performing dutiful deeds towards others, even thyself.