User:Carlematsu/Report

Wikipedia Project Reflection
For my Wikipedia project, I edited the “Information Control Division '' article. I added a handful of relevant sections, new information, new images, and cleaned up the article’s original text. Throughout this project, I learned how to navigate the technical side of Wikipedia and gained experience in contributing within Wikipedia’s norms and regulations. One of Wikipedia's rules is their requirement to abstain from writing opinions. Writing about Germany during World War II is a topic that arouses strong feelings but, through this process, I learned how to write in a neutral manner, editing out words that would be viewed as biased by Wikipedia standards. Throughout this project, I noticed a lot of Wikipedia’s success is due to the low barriers to participation. In class, we talked about barriers to participation such as account making, user screening, etc. One of Wikipedia's most significant entry barriers is acquiring an understanding of Wikipedia’s interface to contribute. Wikipedia takes care of this barrier by providing easy to access resources on their homepage, help page, learn to edit page, etc. that explain how to use Wikipedia. This tactic brings in many users as it does not require much temporal sacrifice. Though this tactic can increase newcomers, it can also increase the number of non-commital users and free-riders, which is one of Wikipedia’s biggest problems. The free rider problem is seen in the disproportionately high number of users benefiting from Wikipedia services compared to the number of users contributing to it. Because the site is so large and because of the low barriers to entry, many people reap the benefits of Wikipedia without contributing.

One thing Wikipedia could do to improve their site and decrease the amount of non-committal users is to improve the social aspect of their platform. There are many history, pop culture, etc. fanatics that want to connect with one another. Wikipedia has the opportunity to connect these people and direct them to work on interest-related tasks. Wikipedia currently has a “Community portal”, the only mechanism by which Wikipedia users can bond with one another is the “talk” section of each project which I find to be too formal and difficult to navigate. This formal format and the technicalities behind these talk sections make it hard for a user to feel a sense of community or ask for help. One important aspect of user retention is the user’s bonds-based commitment to online platforms, which is the connection a user feels to other members of an online community that motivates them to keep showing up. If Wikipedia members are easily able to maintain contact with other users with the same interests it may motivate them to work on projects with their peers, share research, ask questions, etc. This can be promoted with an easier to access space to interact in. As a newcomer, I struggled initially with Wikipedia’s interface and it would have been helpful to access a community forum for help.

Another aspect that could be incorporated into Wikipedia is user specific recommendations. In Building Successful Online Communities, Kraut and Resnik argue that when users have tasks or projects specifically recommended to them based on their interests, it is more likely the user will contribute. On Wikipedia, there are places where users can see tasks that need to be done or fun articles but there is no easy-to-find feature that recommends users articles to work on/read based on their interests. Most of the searching to find new projects is manually done by users and can be discouraging. I think Wikipedia would benefit from catering towards individual user’s interests and assigning tasks to them based on those topics. From my experience, I would’ve loved to be recommended articles similar to my project to help me gain more insight and context.

The last thing I would recommend for Wikipedia is to incorporate more rewards for users to work towards. In class we discussed in depth successful online communities wherein users are influenced by extrinsic motivators. Extrinsic motivation involves the completion or contribution of a task for the purpose of achieving some external achievement outside of one’s own internal moral reckoning or personal interest. This includes the acquisition of external factors such as badges, achievements, etc. that exist outside of the user. Kraut and Resnik state that “Rewards-whether in the form of status, privileges, or material benefits- motivate contributions”. Wikipedia has Barnstars but I think they could benefit from having a uniform process to getting a badge that is not dependent on peer discretion, but acquired through user contribution, wherein users can obtain a badge if they contribute a specific amount of times. Throughout the project process, I know I would have enjoyed something tangible and clear to work towards, like a badge, to incentivize me to research more.

I believe that Wikipedia can solve their issues of free riding and increase their contributors by increasing extrinsic motivators, incorporating user specific tasks, and increasing their facilitation of interpersonal bonding on their platform. Notwithstanding their issue of free-riding and non-committal users, Wikipedia is still unique in that it is popular despite these flaws. I believe this is due to the usefulness of their goods and the ease with which people can access vital information. Wikipedia is also unique in that it thrives despite the opportunity for trolls to dominate. Many other platforms with low barriers to entry severely suffer from these individuals but because Wikipedia uniquely allows users to police their peers, this is an issue that does not severely dilute the quality of their goods. Most of the concepts we covered in class and within the textbook relate to Wikipedia in some way, whether it be the platform structure itself, or things they could add to improve on their page. Throughout this process, I was surprised by the amount of observations I made about Wikipedia based on these concepts and I think it has given me a level of credibility to what I am saying that sets me apart from any random Wikipedia user.