User:Cherysei/Reflections

The Internet is a relatively new phenomenon in terms of global communications. The ability to connect its users and freely (for the most part) disseminate information at rapidly increasing speeds has completely transformed the concept of the global village and the creation of unified communities. Surely, its benefits can be touted at different stages of different group formation processes, but one could just as easily identify its shortcomings, namely its potential to fragment interaction and further the digital divide. Online communities are no exception and much like many Internet phenomena, its concepts and applications remain in a state of flux.

In fact, my own inquiry into collective behavior, which explored the effects of social media on civic engagement, is perhaps at the root of my interest in understanding more about how online communities work. Consistent with Dr. Mako's research question, which attempts to further explain the successes and failures of online collective action, my research focused on establishing a better understanding how and why participation levels decrease, particularly as social movements push for offline engagement. This required a combination of both a positivist as well as social constructivist paradigms, predicting and analyzing data collected on social movement theory and online activism—a pragmatic approach to analysis that I found rather useful during this assignment, which takes things a step further through a more empirical approach.

That being said, I should start by saying that the design of the assignment itself wrestles with the concepts of motivations and incentives, commitment, and newcomers. Students are instructed to immerse themselves into a community that they probably wouldn’t have considered joining otherwise, then asked to link their first-hand observations with various design claims discussed in Kraut et al.'s Building Successful Online Communities (BSOC). While it’s one thing to motivate a class by incentivizing a grade, BSOC outlines three methods of inciting participation of which I made a point to question while working through my article and the peer-editing process: (1) implementing persuasive techniques, (2) offering more intrinsically interesting ways of contributing, and (3) creating external rewards (some system of recognition).

How carefully does Wikipedia consider these participatory devices?

What kinds of issues or complications are inherent in their implementation?

As discussed in lecture, motivation for real online communities is complex and interconnected. While I personally think Wikipedia has effectively addressed the first and third methods (e.g., stub articles, Talk pages, Barnstars, etc.), I think it would be unfair for anyone to criticize its lack of intrinsically interesting ways to contribute. We were, after all, given free rein to choose our own topics, and aside from having to demystify this concept of notability, let’s be honest, Wikipedia is remarkably flexible. Creating and editing article could not be any easier, yet given the subjective nature of making that process fun or stimulating is another story. Who can say with absolutely certainty that any two students will find writing and editing engaging or worth their while? With the exception of learning editing protocols and reading the MOS more than a few times over, I personally found each task rewarding, regardless of whether or not I could generate page views, charm a peer-reviewer, or earn more of those nifty little badges on The Wikipedia Adventure. To me, the status, reputation, or social recognition is outweighed by the intrinsic reward... the gratifying act and process of writing/editing itself.

This leads me to the concepts of commitment and newcomers, which I think go hand-in-hand, especially when it comes to integration—protecting, socializing and retaining novices like myself. Establishing commitment that is (1) affective (emotional), (2) normative, and (3) needs-based is extremely difficult in a community like Wikipedia, where newcomer socialization is individualized. Although I find the variable and informal nature of Wikipedia’s on-boarding appropriate for such an openly collaborative setting, it does little to address a newcomer’s sense of self-efficacy and social acceptance. The mere size of the community can pose constraints on both identity-and-bonds-based commitments. Additionally, I feel there is an inconspicuous dialectic between the lack of attribution the platform fosters and the community’s need to communicate a sense that members are contributing to a greater good (i.e., anonymity vs. recognition). Not all roads lead to selflessness.

With regards to protection, I think the website’s Sandbox is a full-proof way of providing a protective, safe space for learning and experimentation. Despite the fact that I’m comfortable with writing, a great deal of what I learned with regards to editing on Wikipedia was through trial and error. I can’t count how many times I previewed my article before submitting, or jumped to an existing one to see how something else had been done. I can see how this might be cumbersome and even problematic for other people, particularly those with a high uncertainty avoidance who are overwhelmed and/or put-off by ambiguity. We should also consider those who are not savvy with content management platforms, or even those who are not fluent in the English language and yet are expected to write in a certain manner and style—yet I gather much of this is part of the self-selection process.

In conclusion, there is certainly some room for improvement, but for the most part, I think the formula works and the community itself is self-sustaining, just bogged down by significantly slower recruitment and output. In fact, aside from the design factors aforementioned, the only real probable factors that I can attribute to the decrease in editors/contributors are external, such as time and availability (as is the case with most volunteer-based communities). We could also consider the recent shift towards visual content (i.e., videos and images). As a society and culture, we're writing less and less, finding alternative, more engaging ways to share information, deliver a message, and/or tell a story. Perhaps, despite it’s extremely lower barriers to contribution, Wikipedia is slowly becoming less and less of a familiar product.