User:Dipilato.k/subpage

Wikipedia Reflection
“Please advise by which reason you are representative as stated and authorized to issue this permission.” This grammatically questionable statement was sent to a representative of the Boston Gay Men’s Chorus who was helping me license their image for use on Wikipedia. This statement alone suggests that the community on Wikipedia is cold and unwelcoming, which was my perception prior to this class. However, outside of this exchange, my experience on the site has been very positive, contradicting my assumptions about the site. Overall, I found Wikipedia to be a bit overwhelming but very welcoming to me as a newcomer as a result of the norms, moderation and governance on the site.

Before this class, I had never considered editing on Wikipedia because I assumed it would be difficult to learn how to do so and did not know what skills were required to become an effective editor. As a student, my introduction to the site was different than that of a regular contributor, and I think this made the process easier. Before our first class met, we were required to create an account and complete two Wiki Education Foundation tutorials. My struggle to choose a username highlighted how unfamiliar I was with the norms on this site. I did not know if people normally use a version of their own name or aliases that are funny or related to their interests. Ultimately, I kept it simple and used a variation of my name hoping that this would fit in on the site. I think the two tutorials we completed were very helpful in providing an orientation to the Wikipedia site and encouraged me to begin experimenting with the editing tools in my sandbox. A typical Wikipedia user does not have access to these tutorials, but I think it might be a useful initiation task. As Aronson and Mills discovered in their study, people are more committed to and get more enjoyment from groups when they go through difficulty in order to join. As a result, adding a tutorial for new Wikipedia editors would likely increase commitment, while also teaching users the basics. However, this extra effort could also deter new users from joining, which is a major drawback. In addition, Wikipedia would have to remove the ability for anonymous users to edit in order to track who has completed the tutorial, which would be a major change that would likely upset the community and reduce the number of new editors.

Wikipedia also has social norms in place to encourage newcomers to join and remain active in the community. This is guided by the principle, “Don’t bite the newcomer,” which means that experienced editors on the site should be kind to newcomers as they are learning, even if they make mistakes or do not know things that may seem obvious. The Wikipedia page that explains this guideline highlights that negative interactions with experienced users can intimidate and discourage newcomers who could become valuable contributors in the future. As a result of this norm, editors on Wikipedia should not say things like “Read the field manual” or “Google is free.” Instead they should answer questions kindly and guide newcomers to the appropriate resources. I think this is particularly important on Wikipedia because there are so many policies, guidelines, and community standards it would be unfair and unrealistic to assume that a newcomer is familiar with all of them before they begin contributing to the site. On the flip side of this, for newcomers eager to learn about the community and its norms, there is a wealth of information available on Wikipedia that can help them to learn if they are concerned about violating norms. I found having all of these resources readily available to be useful as I acclimated to the site.

Beyond the rules and guidelines, Wikipedia also works to increase commitment from newcomers by welcoming at the Teahouse. As Kraut et al. explain, “Providing opportunities for members to engage in personal conversation increases bonds-based commitment in online communities." By welcoming users to the site and providing a space where newcomers can talk to experienced editors and ask questions, newcomers feel valued and encouraged to remain in the community. While I did not talk to anyone in the Teahouse, I did appreciate that a user had acknowledged that I had joined. If I did not have a classroom setting for asking questions, the Teahouse would have served as somewhere to learn about Wikipedia.

Joining Wikipedia as part of a course not only changed how I learned about the community and its norms, but also influenced my motivations. Wikipedia typically relies on normative commitment related to the fact that editors have a preexisting commitment to creating a free online encyclopedia because they recognize its value. When explaining this type of commitment, Kraut et al. further highlight this phenomenon by referencing a campaign for contributions to Wikipedia in which Jimmy Wales said, “It stopped being just a website a long time ago. For many of us, most of us, Wikipedia has become a part of our daily lives." This example highlights the strength of the commitment to the cause and also the reciprocity that helps to keep editors committed on Wikipedia. As a student, I did not share these values when I joined Wikipedia and instead joined because it was required by the class. As a result, the tools Wikipedia uses to increase commitment were likely less effective on me than on the average user. However, editing on Wikipedia has helped me to see the value in the platform, which in turn has increased my motivation to edit the site even if I did begin editing as part of a requirement.

Another feature of Wikipedia that influences motivation and commitment is Wikilove. I was able to experience this firsthand when we were required to thank someone as an assignment. Wikipedia allows you to give people symbolic rewards on their talk pages, these include fun things like cookies and kittens as well as barnstars, which are well-known on Wikipedia and denote outstanding contributions. I think Wikilove successfully increases motivation to contribute to the site because it is an example of both performance feedback and a reward, both of which have been proven to increase motivation. However, since Wikilove is not a tangible reward, users are also less likely to game the system in order to earn them. Additionally, the rewards given in Wikilove are extrinsic, but they are not likely to decrease the quality of contributions like some extrinsic rewards do because they only offer a symbolic value, not a real monetary value. Overall, although some think Wikilove is too silly for the site, I think it is a useful way to increase motivation and enjoyed sharing it.

After becoming familiar with Wikipedia and its norms, values, and goals, it was time to make our first edits. We were required to make minor grammatical edits or add links as our first contributions to the site. Before this class, I never considered making simple edits like this even though it is relatively low effort. Wikipedia may be able to recruit more new editors by highlighting these types of small edits and encouraging casual readers of the site to make them as they read different articles. This could serve as a gateway to more significant editing later on. This relates back to Cialdini's persuasion technique related to consistency because if you ask someone to do something small first they are more likely to commit to doing something larger later on. In high school, I used to read a lot of Wikipedia articles, but never made edits, however if I had known how easy it is to make these small types of edits I probably would have done so.

After making more minor edits, we began drafting our articles. I found that I enjoyed writing the article more than I expected and was excited to share the great information I found about the chorus because I had not previously found all of the same information compiled in one place. I also think I had an easier time writing the article than some classmates because there were a significant number of news articles, which are a verifiable source, available for me to use. However, while writing, I did have fears that my article would not be considered notable enough or that my point of view would not be considered neutral because all of the articles I referenced had a very positive view of the chorus. To address my concerns about using a neutral point of view, I received helpful feedback during the peer review process and in comments from user:Shalor (Wiki Ed), who works for Wiki Education. I was then able to adjust some of the wording of my article to make it more neutral, an example of this is seen in this version. Additionally, I have had no comments that suggest that my article is not notable enough and it passed through the review process to publication in a matter of hours. The user who approved my article appears to spend a lot of time on Wikipedia reviewing drafts, which is an important role on the site because there is a consistent backlog of articles awaiting reviews. The user made a few small copy edits before publication and did not share any concerns about the content. I was surprised and glad that the article was approved so quickly because I know that this can often be a long process.

Throughout the process of joining Wikipedia, writing my article, and getting it published I experienced and also observed how users interact in this community. In most cases, I noticed users being kind to each other while following the Wikipedia norms “assume good faith” and “practice civility.” Before this experience, I assumed Wikipedians would not be kind if I did not know something or came across as a newbie, but I was surprised that in most cases people on Wikipedia are very nice when conversing with other users. The idea of civility allows Wikipedians to figure out many conflicts on their own, which reduces the workload of moderators, however, if a conflict cannot be solved the users can also request arbitration. As Kraut et al. found, moderation by people who are members of the community and who are impartial are perceived as more legitimate and more effective. As a result, I think the moderation on Wikipedia is a good fit for this type of community.

However, my experience with other Wikipedians was not perfect. As I mentioned in my introduction, there was one Wikipedian who was difficult to work with and borderline rude as we attempted to get an approved photo for my article. Trying to get a photo was the most difficult part of the article creation process because Wikipedia requires that photos be released under a Creative Commons license, which means that anyone can do anything with the photos. In order to do this, I contacted the Boston Gay Men’s Chorus via Facebook messenger and the person who runs their Facebook page was very helpful. She connected me to an employee of the chorus who had the right to release the photo. With the help of User:Reagle, we sent her the template to create the license and she sent it back along with an image. Considering how complicated the process can seem, this went very smoothly. However, after we submitted the release to Wikipedia, a Wikipedian who reviewed it sent a very verbose email accusing the chorus employee of releasing a photo she did not have the rights to. The confusion stemmed from the fact that she had mentioned the original photographer in the license even though the photographer had already transferred full rights to the chorus. This was a simple mix up that was easily fixed, but the Wikipedian’s email was very off putting, especially because it was written to someone who is not a Wikipedia user and who was simply trying to help. I understand that this Wikipedian was likely just trying to protect Wikipedia from wrongly using a photo because he is committed to the platform, but he did not assume good faith and as a result created unnecessary negativity, which shows how important it is that this norm is upheld.

During this project I was surprised that I never encountered or observed any vandals. I think this demonstrates that the moderation on Wikipedia is successful and that the community has avoided being overrun by spammers or trolls. One of the community standards at Wikipedia is “Don’t feed the trolls,” which effectively reduces the influence that trolls have on the site. In addition, moderators on Wikipedia can ban accounts and IP addresses that are making inappropriate contributions as another way to dispel trolls and vandals. Since I did not encounter any trolls or vandals in my experience, I would conclude that this is successful in reducing these types of behaviors.

Overall, my experience as a new contributor to Wikipedia was widely positive. I think that participating as part of a class made it easier to acclimate to the community and to begin making positive contributions. In addition, I think the moderation and governance on the site, as well as the community norms, all contribute to the fact that Wikipedia is such a large and active community. In the future, I would be open to continuing to contribute to the site by making copy edits or by adding photos since I experienced firsthand how difficult it can be to get access to a photo for use on the site. Dipilato.k (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)