User:Dkilleen/Report

Wikipedia analysis (task 7) Darby Killeen Online Communities

As a beginner user of Wikipedia, I did have several moments where I found myself lost or unable to find my way back to a specific page. Over the last few weeks, I have felt that I have become much more familiar with the site and am now much more efficient when moving from page to page. But with that being said, I believe that Wikipedia lacks in creating a beginner user-friendly site. While there are several informational routes to take when you first begin, it can be difficult to navigate as a new user, in general, Wikipedia needs to update its UX design. I suggest that Wikipedia simplify the design on both the user pages and the editing pages. Editing pages should be clearer, with straightforward instructions and directions that are given as you go. I feel that learning about the site all at once, in the beginning, left me with an incomplete understanding of the site, and I was constantly trying to go back and reread the directions. I also believe implementing an editing system that is more intuitive and user-friendly would help encourage more individuals to contribute new information or new pages. One thing I think Wikipedia could add that, in my opinion, would be super helpful is a clearer outline for editing/ creating new pages. Implementing something similar to editing templates or outlines. As someone who created a new article for my first Wiki article, I had trouble creating an outline that was consistent with other articles about similar topics. I found myself spending a lot of time researching other articles to see how the information was structured. I think if Wikipedia offered optional templates for editors, it could be very useful, especially for beginners. The use of optional templates could help editors or writers structure their articles in ways that could help lessen the length of revisions that may be needed. Starting with Wikipedia, I found myself becoming very frustrated with the site. Besides having to navigate the site, I did not particularly enjoy the editing process. Wikipedia bases itself on creating well-revised, non-biased, citeable, and factual articles. I think more features should be in place to ensure that writers contribute reliable information and statements. I understand that after publishing, Wikipedia will create warnings about things that look biased or grammatically incorrect, but I feel that there should be more warnings during the editing process. I think that writers should receive instant feedback as they go, whether that might be spelling/ grammar check or warnings that pop up if a statement seems suggestive or inaccurate. It can be nerve-racking for first-time users to create an article and then post it live for the world to see. I felt a small sense of stress from this assignment because I had to double-check my work many times, and I feared that I would post something incorrectly. Implementing new tools like this would benefit writers, editors, and Wikipideas' goal of creating high-quality content. I know that it would improve my experience with Wikipedia. In class, we have talked a lot about regulating different online communities, whether that be through enforced rules, live mediators, or automatic suspension if comments outside the guidelines are made. Through the exploration of different communities, I have found that almost all post and attempt to enforce rules, some even having individuals who are constantly monitoring the chat. Wikipedia has rules and administrators in place to help regulate, but for the most part, it is a self-sustainable community. Because of this, it is important that Wikipedia highlights good behavior and rewards those who participate within the set guidelines. I think the suggestions I have made above can be supported by the idea of regulating norms. Wikipedia has several norms that are specified to users after you sign. I believe that creating a more functional and streamlined system will help encourage users to use the site correctly. In my opinion, the easier the site is to use, the less likely a user will act out. I think my advice should be taken more seriously due to the background I have achieved through my studies. Through this class, I have been able to explore several different outlets and reasons why people act in specific ways. A new user may not have the same understanding about Wikipedia users as I do. Affective commitment is another concept we discussed in our lectures. Vaguely speaking, this concept is defined by one's commitment to an organization. In this case, we see Wikipedia users who committed generous amounts of time to editing and peer-reviewing articles. These individuals who share this type of commitment on Wikipedia are what make this site so unique. There are other online communities that we have visited where there are tasks to be completed or surveys to be taken. Still, I feel like taking the time to sit down and seriously edit an article is a different level of commitment. Wikipedia is unique because it is a platform where most (generally) users are committed to creating a positive impact and are taking the time to look over new information even though there are little to no real rewards given. I would not change anything about the current reward or rule system, my only notes were about the UX design and functionality of the editing pages.