User:COM 482 1/Reflection

As a newcomer to the online community of Wikipedia, I felt as if I was a fish out of water initially. It was in the moment that I began to truly dive into the community of Wikipedia that I could zone in from a bird’s eye view to a much more detailed analysis of the nature in which this online community functions.

The WikiEdu dashboard was the springboard in which I could begin to integrate as an acting ‘Wikipedian’ and truly identify the nuances that define Wikipedia. Wikipedia did an excellent job of orienting me to the community. This socialization aspect for an online community is critical as newcomers learn the ins and out. The WikiEdu Dashboard was a form of institutionalized socialization, effective in establishing clarity of norms and regulations. Descriptive norms were displayed through this form of institutionalized socialization as I began to observe the actions of expert Wikipedians and visualize myself as one.

The community aspect of Wikipedia was not one that I initially thought to appear, but I felt a sense of commitment to abide by the rules and norms set by Wikipedia simply due to inherent morality. Morality arose from intrinsic motivation that I drew upon in tackling my article, but extrinsic motivation played a role to develop normative commitment based on the fact that a grade rested upon my performance. Despite this sheer fact that my contributions were part of Wiki HigherEd, the mixture of social contact with other editors on Wikipedia, optimal challenge, mastery, and competition were characteristics that began to emerge. Wikipedia’s ability to cultivate several types of commitment was apparent from both, but I felt identity based commitment and normative commitment were the most cogent in continuing to spark my desire to learn more

Once I claimed my stub article and formulated text from research, feelings of accomplishment ensued. These feelings of accomplishment rose out of the altruistic nature of contributing to a collective good similar to that of a Yelp reviewer. This collective good aspect is prominent in Wikipedia because it feels as if each contribution is paying it forward to the next editor that comes along. This form of identity based commitment formed as I made the connection of a temporarily self proclaimed Wikipedian. Each piece of text embedded with citations that I found, sparked feelings of culpability in the recognition that this article could be reframed as one large group project. In order to remain in accordance with norms of the community and to pull my weight, normative commitment influenced an inclination for accuracy in my work.

Each time, I signed off with the four tildes to leave my mark for other editors to trace, it felt as if my user page began to fill up with friends that all wanted to succeed in achieving a finished product to be proud of. I imagine with an uptick in interactions and articles, one would begin to fortify bonds-based commitment based on the reciprocity of positive feedback. As the amount of time I spent on community specific activities increased, so did these variations of commitment.

Wikipedia’s ability to catch errors and behavior that deviate from the norm were prompt. This type of regulation contributes to the continuity of a community. Wiki-editors were constructive moderators in keeping me on track. This type of moderation resulted in voluntary compliance and familiarized me with injunctive norms. Group cohesion contributes to social order and Wikipedia’s apt feedback is conducive in promoting legitimacy of the rules resulting in compliance with the rules.

While Wikipedia has been successful in many aspects that have supplied the community such success since its inception, it is not free from flaws. Wikipedia has soundly created a community that has targeted specific users. Cost-benefit analysis is an appropriate descriptor of the dilemma in which I grappled with. Incentivizing an individual to contribute to this community on free will requires a renouncement of a significant amount of time. The site is constructed in a way that incurs low social ownership due to the ease of implementing edits, but I think opting in to work on articles in teams would retain individuals to contribute.

It is purported that common fate and interdependence elicit feelings of purpose for individuals. Investment of users could be increased if offered the choice to work in a cohort. It is known that joint tasks make groups more cohesive as a consequential effect of a group affiliation apart from the large umbrella of Wikipedia. A Wikipedian may curate a liking to renouncing their free time much more swiftly. This concept could take form by opting in to an article that is being worked on by a sub-group of Wikipedians with similar interests. This minor adjustment could make the appearance of editing one that brings a sense of value due to collaborative efforts.

The process of navigating between various pages to leave comments proved challenging. Wikipedia could benefit from streamlining their main website with approachability in mind. Other sites such as Zooniverse utilized intuitiveness as a guide. Wikipedia appears to exclude particular audiences from engaging in the site unintentionally. Zooniverse leads you through step by step modules as you choose a project while Wikipedia releases one on free rein to edit. This design could appeal to the tech-savvy audience that Wikipedia targets, but leaves less room for some audiences that feel far from adept to join. The WikiEdu site demonstrates this sort of sequential model that the main site should consider adopting, preferably organizing the main Wikipedia platform to function in the manner as WikiEdu does, free from jargon.

Engaging in Wikipedia was a transformative experience that revealed both the well functioning elements of an online community and those that could benefit from improvement. The site must seek to demystify the factors of intimidation that possibly deter the average individual from clicking that edit button. A start is to envision an audience that is more inclusive.