User:Caroliner6/Report

When you search for a term or name on Google, Wikipedia often emerges as one of the first few search suggestions. The free online encyclopedia provides information on numerous subjects ranging from general areas to niche subtopics. Unlike a research journal or news site, Wikipedia articles are written by members of the general public who choose to participate in Wikipedia's extensive online community. Wikipedia sees a variety of types of users and contributors, ranging from individuals without an account to dedicated, experienced moderators. As a student in COM 481: Online Communities at the University of Washington, I went through the WikiEdu training and worked toward adding content to an incomplete or weak Wikipedia page. While my overall experience with the Wikipedia community was positive, I observed areas of potential improvement across its recruitment, protection, socialization, and retention of newcomers.

Without the extrinsic motivation of a class assignment, I am not sure I would have participated in the Wikipedia community. However, after going through the learning process and making contributions to a Wikipedia page, I am happy I was guided to the community and feel satisfied by my contribution to my chosen article page. Prior to taking COM 481, I was unaware of the process behind Wikipedia’s articles and did not realize the level of commitment and passion its contributors demonstrate for the community. Honestly, my attitude toward Wikipedia was skeptical due to the handful of times people, including previous teachers and peers, demonstrated hesitancy towards the site. This brings me to my first piece of advice for Wikipedia regarding the recruitment and selection of new members. Wikipedia should engage in more active recruiting both through interpersonal recruitment and endorsements from public figures. Despite Wikipedia’s popularity among browsers, more awareness of how to contribute to the articles is needed. Wikipedia could include an option that prompts members to invite their friends, establishing word-of-mouth recruiting. While traditional advertising may not be as effective as interpersonal recruitment, Wikipedia could provide endorsements from notable public figures to encourage participation in editing and adding to articles. Both of these methods would draw more members to the community, increasing perspective and voices.

Wikipedia does well in the construction and establishment of its community norms, but further socialization of Wikipedia newcomers might aid in their assimilation process. In my time adjusting to the new community, I found WikiEdu to be an invaluable tool. The program provided an institutionalized method of socialization that informed me of the expectations for being a good contributor in a formal, sequential manner. The support this program offers would be helpful for all newcomers, not just students. Due to Wikipedia’s size and stature as an organization, a method of institutionalized socialization would be appropriate for its newcomers. While requiring this method of socialization might unduly increase the barrier to entry into the community, Wikipedia could present it as an optional training service. To incentive the use of the program, Wikipedia could grant barnstar awards. Making contributions to articles is intimidating, especially with the fear that a moderator might come and flag a violation. Thus, a comprehensive training system could help members feel more informed and likely to engage. Another way to increase socialization would be to include an adjacent discussion platform for members to talk on. The Talk pages felt very formal to me and too topic-specific, dissuading me from connecting with other members on them. However, a discussion platform with an interface resembling a messaging system rather than an article could enhance conversations. By extension, increased communication would foster connection and collaboration, and it may even foster users’ bond-based commitments. Finally, I would suggest having an option for collaborative sandboxes for groups to provide a more interactive, collaborative experience when editing an article. This would allow new users socialization and protection when learning to edit and motivate timid users to engage in an activity that feels less high stakes.

Once members have joined, Wikipedia could make further efforts to ensure retention by increasing collaboration among users as well as appealing to affective and normative commitment. While Talk pages afford a degree of discussion, many of them felt stagnant, impersonal, and too formal. As mentioned earlier, implementing a discussion platform could allow for greater organization and collaboration between users. Additionally, this could enhance bonds-based commitments in the community by establishing greater connections between users. In my experience on Wikipedia, I felt like an isolated individual making edits rather than feeling deep connection to a community. To increase normative commitment, Wikipedia could spotlight articles that need improvement, especially topics to improve equity gaps. I would also recommend providing spaces for smaller subgroups within Wikipedia based on interest, appealing to identity-based commitment. While you can find areas based on topic interest, they are neither easy to navigate as a new user nor intuitive to participate in. Therefore, I propose greater efforts to help users find subgroups based on personal interests directly and soon after they join. For example, members could be prompted to select three interests upon joining, directing them to subtopics or groups accordingly. People are more inclined to participate when the group is smaller, and Wikipedia might feel overwhelming when you first join.

These recommendations come from a knowledge accumulated through my online communities course and experience as a new contributor to Wikipedia. As a whole, my experience on Wikipedia was positive and fulfilling, and I now feel more compelled to engage with the community in the future. As an online community committed to contributing formal, neutral information to the public, Wikipedia offers unique features and affordances. Their community norms and regulations are thorough and clear, effectively supporting their community goals. Unlike other platforms, Wikipedia requires citations and values the credibility of sources. Amongst the sea of misinformation and polarization on the internet, this ensures a greater effort of the reputability of information being spread.

These recommendations come from a combination of knowledge accumulated through my online communities course and experience as a new contributor to Wikipedia. As a whole, my experience on Wikipedia was positive and fulfilling, and I now feel more compelled to engage with the community in the future. As an online community committed to contributing formal, neutral information to the public, Wikipedia offers unique features and affordances. Their community norms and regulations are thorough and clear, effectively supporting their community goals. Unlike other platforms, Wikipedia requires citations and values the credibility of sources. Amongst the sea of misinformation and polarization on the internet, this ensures a greater effort of the reputability of information being spread.