User:Bellamila13/Report

In high school, Wikipedia was always portrayed as an unreliable source by my teachers. After my experience, I would now say that I disagree. Throughout the process, Wikipedia was easy to navigate. This particular assignment taught me how to approach a topic from a neutral standpoint, as well as how to find reliable sources. It also taught me the ins and outs of the Wikipedia community, which is useful for future investigation and if I ever want to contribute to an article again! This experience was eye-opening and hands-on in a way that I appreciated.

To start, I want to mention what Wikipedia is doing well. The sandbox feature where editors can test different features and work on improving articles before publishing them is valuable. If any mistakes are made, they are not hurting the entire site; it would instead only be a blip in someone’s sandbox. Additionally, the modules presented in WikiEdu to help us learn about citing and notability were useful. It was overwhelming to approach editing an article, but these modules broke down the process into attainable steps. Based on our class discussions, it is apparent that the “good faith” mentality is also a crucial part of this community. Assuming that editors are trying their best to better an article is essential, as it helps establish trust between users (which is also important for user retention!). The neutrality standpoint is also vital to this site, as it is an online encyclopedia and is expected to refrain from persuasion or additional biases. I also believe the recognition of social awards is helpful and provides early adopters or frequent editors an additional benefit for their dedication. This is one part of the utility model, which aims to predict whether a new member will join a new community based on benefits. Although Wikipedia is not a new site, it is crucial to award early adopters and frequent editors to recognize their commitment. Finally, I think the throttles implemented on the number of times a user can edit were important, as it limits the damage done during edit wars. Having graduated warnings (i.e. starting off by assuming the violation was a mistake but later turning into warnings) also allows individuals to save face when they make a mistake. If they continue to violate, then harsher punishments are enforced. Overall, I think Wikipedia has a strong basis for commitment of its members and allows for individuals to contribute in a safe environment for the most part.

Immediately after joining Wikipedia, I realized this site is affective commitment based. This means that commitment is based on the identity to fulfill a mission. Many individuals love to edit and write articles, as well as research and use their knowledge to help. This is a positive thing because if some individuals leave the site, others will not necessarily follow. As their commitment is not entirely based on the bonds between members, they will not feel threatened by a loss of members as strongly. Additionally, I believe that the reader to leader funnel is crucial for Wikipedia. This is the idea that new users start as readers and then move to contributors, ending off as leaders in the final stage. I will address ways I think Wikipedia can increase their retention rate to create leaders near the end of the reflection. Finally, I believe that Wikipedia does an excellent job with maintaining familiarity (encyclopedia-based site) while also incorporating new features that make this community stand out (free, online, being able to edit without an account, and more).

Switching over to areas of improvement, I found searching for a stub topic to be overwhelming. Based on my experience, I recommend finding a way to categorize these stubs into approachable sections, and the WikiProjects are a strong start. Additionally, categorizing stubs based on a user’s interests if they have an account would increase the chances they will choose to edit one. With their highlighted interests, members will feel like they can contribute to something they are passionate about. I also believe it is crucial to raise awareness of conversations between users (not through talk pages but on a more social level). This could include creating online neighborhoods for particular topics to increase collaboration based on interests. Overall socialization on Wikipedia is limited, and it would be a good idea to incorporate more opportunities to connect outside of the encyclopedia base. Additionally, based on my experience, Wikipedia was always portrayed to me as unreliable, which is why I believe highlighting a Wikipedia article as “verified” would be beneficial. Verification would require moderators though, which is also something I recommend. Having a consistent moderation process would allow articles to be approved as they are developed. Finally, although I believe that recruitment is crucial, using advertisements for Wikipedia would not be effective in my opinion. Therefore, continuing to emphasize word-of-mouth recruitment through users would be the best method.

One major issue that I want to address about Wikipedia is the decreasing retention of users. Many individuals feel that Wikipedia is hostile towards new members and older members frequently delete their work. Based on this, I believe it is crucial to instill beginner socialization tactics (formal and sequential tasks) to show new users the site's expectations. Although Wikipedia has the “don’t bite the newcomers!” rule, it also needs to be enforced. I am not able to cover all of the terms from the lectures that I want to incorporate, but these are the ones that I deem the most valuable.

After the first few weeks of class, I believe that my feedback should be taken seriously because not only have I explored a plethora of online communities, but I had personal experience with Wikipedia as a new user. I will say that Wikipedia incorporates many unique features, including being able to edit without an account, creating WikiProjects for stubs, and more. I think that overall, Wikipedia is a successful online community but still has its flaws to work through.