User:Dengtianhei/Report

My first-time experience with editing on Wikipedia was inspirational. I started with a stub-class article with only one paragraph and one template. For almost one month, I have tried to expand the article, and it ended up becoming one that I'm satisfied with. Although there is still much more to be improved, editing was challenging while pleasurable. Editing involved digging on the internet for reliable sources, studying and understanding them, formatting, etc. I constantly learned new things, which helped me become better at editing. Even though my experience with editing on Wikipedia was tremendous, there are a few more things that Wikipedia could improve to become a better community.

Problems With Searching
The first thing is increasing participation. I think what Wikipedia could do to improve participation is to let users see the articles they might be interested in and send them edit requests. There are two parts to this suggestion: allowing users to see the articles that need improvement and matching their interest with the article. In BSOC, the first Design Claim is "Making the list of needed contributions easily visible increases the likelihood that the community will provide them." (Kraut et al., 2012, p. 26) Wikipedia's watchlist was discussed as an example of this design claim in the book. However, for new users and users who currently don't have an article to work on, watchlists may not boost participation. In Wikipedia, users can search for articles and choose which ones they want to improve. The articles have their categories, and some are included in the Wiki project. Inside these Wiki projects, users can find a table that indicates how many articles there are in each quality level, and they can pick based on their preferences. This is an effective method for users to find an article and work on it. However, this process requires users to search for articles actively. I used to be a pure viewer on Wikipedia, and if I wasn't asked to contribute to Wikipedia, I don't think I would ever search for an article and begin editing. From my experience with Wikipedia there are two reasons why searching might barricade participation.

1. Raises Cost to Contribute
Although searching seems to take minimum effort, it raises the cost to contribute. It simply filters out potential editors who do not search to contribute. According to the lecture on Newcomers, "Costly barriers-in time or money-keep mean that only more motivated individual will join." (Hill, 2022, slide 5) This is also true to Wikipedia; however, being selective seems to be unnecessary because many users, who are simply viewers, are unmotivated and unaware of becoming an editor in the first place. Presenting these users with articles that they may be interested in allows them to consider whether to become an editor and find motivations that they were not aware of before, whether intrinsic or extrinsic. Rather than leaving those users unaware of what they could do and unmotivated, Wikipedia can actively take the role to try to cultivate motivations and develop these users to become editors. Another reason why searching might be ineffective is users' lack of commitment. When first registered with Wikipedia, users might find it hard to find their place in Wikipedia or someone to connect to before contributing. Their willingness to contribute and help is low because they are distanced from the community compared with users who have at least one commitment.

However, suppose Wikipedia can reach out to those users and claim that the community can use their help and present them with options. In that case, it could reduce their feeling of isolation and distance from the community, increasing their chance of developing identity-based commitment if they feel they are a part of it. (Kraut et al., 2012) Additionally, Design Claim 9 illustrates that people in high status in the community have a higher chance of making successful requests. (Kraut et al., 2012) In Wikipedia, users with barn stars are differentiated from ordinary users and considered more authoritative as they are more experienced with editing. Suppose ordinary users can connect with these barn star users. In that case, they are more likely to develop identity-based or even bonds-based commitment and thus have a higher chance of participating.

2. Lack of User Commitment
The second part is to match the articles presented to users with their fields of interest. According to design claim 3 and 4, "Compared to asking people at random, asking people to perform tasks that interest them and that they can perform increases contributions, Compared to broadcasting requirements for contribution to all community members, asking specific people to make contributions increases the likelihood that they will do so." (Kraut et al., 2012, p. 27-30) Matching articles with users is essential to increase participation and contribution. The steps are clear but also challenging. Users who register with Wikipedia should choose their areas of interest, and Wikipedia will match articles that fall within their fields and send edit requests.

Suggestion
The suggestion I'm making involves the following steps, and it aims to improve participation level from beginners and users whose participation level is low. First, users who register with Wikipedia should pick their areas of interest from the WikiProjects or categories Wikipedia already has. Then, based on the intersectionality of their preferences, Wikipedia should match them with articles that fit their interests. Once checked, a reputable user from the category of that article needs to reach out to the user for help. There could be many articles to be sent to the user but be careful not to send too many. Make sure the request has a reasonable workload. Also, stub-class articles should be sent to beginners; more difficult tasks can be sent while their experience with Wikipedia grows. My suggestion should be taken more seriously than random new users because I have engaged in editing in Wikipedia. I provided a perspective of myself who had 0 experience with Wikipedia and eventually completed editing an article, and I can relate and identify with the types of users mentioned in the article.