User:JennaHCesar/sandbox

Wikipedia Reflection Essay
Wikipedia has emerged as the largest and most prominent online encyclopedia for various users to access. Within Wikipedia, one can find numerous articles on a colossal number of topics. Furthermore, Wikipedia has created and promoted an online community in which participants are the writers and publishers of these said articles (whether it be writing a completely new article on a given topic or editing an already), allowing them to  engage with other participants; or just simply readers of these articles. Overall, Wikipedia has established itself as a successful online community, however, there are drawbacks and certain elements that could be fixed to reduce error and gain greater presence and contributions.

When first starting out with Wikipedia, after creating an account, one of the first things I noticed that helps make Wikipedia run smoothly and effectively as an online community are the required training modules, coupled with the sandbox. Before I could even edit in the sandbox, I had to run through the training modules. These training modules ensure that newcomers are aware of the rules and regulations in Wikipedia and how to carry out certain tasks (like inserting pictures, how to work in the sandbox, etc.). And then once in the sandbox, I was able to make edits, make mistakes, and learn from them while not jeopardizing/ruining the current article that was “live.” I felt a lot more comfortable editing an article and not as afraid because these measures were set in place. These aspects of Wikipedia are a huge asset to both Wikipedia itself, but also experienced users of Wikipedia and newcomers. The training modules and sandbox act as a buffer against newcomers making mistakes and violating rules and norms, while also helping them learn about Wikipedia and how it works (Kraut & Resnick, 2012). This helps fight against the disruption of the fluidity of Wikipedia by newcomers, causing upset and annoyance from experienced users. Furthermore, specifically  in regard to the training modules, because they take time to complete, this could deter spammers and trolls (Kraut & Resnick, 2012). Trolls and spammers usually want instant gratification and may not see value in disrupting the Wikipedia community if they have to complete the training modules. So, the training modules and  sandbox pages incorporated in Wikipedia’s online community are very beneficial to Wikipedia- they help newcomers learn about Wikipedia while also helping to prevent violations of rules and norms, working as a deterrent towards spammers and trolls, and keeping the dynamics of Wikipedia working smoothly and effectively (which makes Wikipedia and experienced users happy).

In addition to the material mentioned above, it is important to note that even with the use of sandboxes and mandatory training modules, it is pretty inevitable that people with bad intentions (spammers and trolls) will find a way to cause havoc and disrupt the fluidity and dynamics of the online community- continually and intentionally (newcomers will inevitably make mistakes too but theirs are unintentional, so once they learn from their mistakes, they will not continually repeat them). Spammers and trolls pose one of the greatest risks to an online community because they can cause current users to leave an online community out of annoyance and anger, as the platform and community would not be working as it should be (Kraut & Resnick, 2012). To combat this, Wikipedia does have a great system and management strategy set in place-  Wikipedia encourages other Wikipedia users/editors to fix mistakes that they see and/or report violations. Wikipedia also has moderators and bots constantly checking and ensuring that Wikipedia’s standards and rules are upheld. These moderators and bots constantly detect and take down unwanted content and violations. Additionally, because these moderators and bots take down trolls’ and spammers’ content, as they violate community and Wikipedia guidelines, this may demotivate them to continue trying to disrupt Wikipedia’s online community. However, with all of this being said, Wikipedia has a low barrier to entry- it is free to join (no external costs/money to join), anonymity is high (you only need a username, email address, and name-fake or real- to make an account), and you can make many accounts. Because of this, Wikipedia faces the cheap pseudonym problem- because there is a low barrier to entry, it is often easier for whoever’s facing costly negative feedback to just open another account (Kraut & Resnick, 2012). Spammers and trolls of Wikipedia, if banned or suspended for violating guidelines and rules, may just create another account to continue spamming and trolling because the barriers to join Wikipedia are so low. To prevent this, while also making sure Wikipedia remains attractive to prospective users that would benefit the community, Wikipedia should put a limit on the number of accounts users can have. In terms of Wikipedia and how it serves its users- it provides information and people can make edits to articles- it would not make sense really why someone would need more than one account. So what I am proposing is that a person is only allowed one Wikipedia account, and if they do something to the point that their account gets banned by Wikipedia (usually people who are spammers or trolls), they will not be able to create or have access to another account, making it so their article-editing privileges are permanently taken away. This new policy of allowing one account per person would help mitigate the problem spammers and trolls pose, as they could not just create another account once their original one gets banned (Kraut & Resnick, 2012). So, Wikipedia should enforce a new policy that only permits one Wikipedia account per user.

One notable thing I noticed that is weak for Wikipedia are the motivations to contribute to Wikipedia and to stay committed to contributing to Wikipedia- they are low and insufficient. To be completely transparent, if this assignment/project wasn’t introduced, I would most likely never have contributed to an article in Wikipedia. Also, I would not say I am committed to Wikipedia and would edit another one. While drafting and editing my “Intuitive Eating” article, I really did not think there were enough rewards and motivations to contribute and continue contributing to editing Wikipedia articles; especially for all the time it takes to find multiple reliable sources, synthesize that information, and then write and make edits to an article. There are the intrinsic rewards and motivations of being able to give valuable information for others to use. There are also extrinsic rewards of earning and collecting “barn stars” overtime. Moreover, in the eyes of those who continue to edit Wikipedia articles, they would be associated with the identity-based type of commitment- they would commit to Wikipedia  because they feel like a part of a community and want to help fulfill its mission (Kraut & Resnick, 2012). These people feel committed to editing and creating articles to make Wikipedia a better online Encyclopedia for others to access for information (this type of commitment is heavily intrinsic). Nevertheless, I believe these extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are simply not strong enough to gain and retain/commit (especially long-term) contributors to Wikipedia. People primarily lean towards doing something if there is extrinsic motivation (like money), notably if a contribution to an online community takes larger amounts of time and effort (Kraut & Resnick, 2012). To fix this, I believe that Wikipedia should make some reward system that leans toward being more extrinsic. Perhaps, contributors who have completed many thoughtful edits, created new articles, and have been a part of the Wikipedia community for a long period of time could earn some heightened status and/or possible external reward (money, physical awards like plaques/trophies). I think especially for these dedicated contributors, they deserve some extrinsic reward because of their dedicated time and effort to make Wikipedia a successful online community (almost like as compensation for their work and time), but perhaps even more importantly, to thank them more personally for their contributions and to recognize them for what they have done for the Wikipedia community. This is important as people are more willing to keep contributing and working hard if they are recognized and applauded for their hard work. People are more willing to contribute if they are fairly compensated for their work. Furthermore, Wikipedia should incorporate more extrinsic rewards into their community because so many other online platforms like Tiktok, Instagram, Pinterest, Twitch, etc. have systems where highly followed users and those who contribute the best content are paid money and given high social statuses; which all in turn, enables them to be successful online communities that gain and maintain users. Additionally, because of their heightened status, these users gain various brand partnerships, allowing them to earn respectable amounts of income. If Wikipedia were to emulate this, they would attract new users and make existing users committed to staying because of the possibilities of earning money, brand partnerships, and the celebrity-like status. Wikipedia can allocate and/or draw some funds from what is donated to them to pay these contributors who reach this status. Also, Wikipedia can draw out guidelines to reach this status- must be a long-time contributor and amassed a large number of thoughtful and detailed contributions to make Wikipedia a better and more informational platform (or something along those lines). If there are not enough strong motivations to join and/or commit to an online community, people will not join and stay (Kraut & Resnick, 2012). As I see it, Wikipedia does not have enough strong motivators to join and stay committed to editing articles, thus, they should introduce more extrinsic rewards, as people usually gravitate and are more motivated to contribute to online communities that include extrinsic rewards.

Another problem I see with Wikipedia again relates to its motivations and commitment- however in the reader’s point-of-view, not an editor’s/contributor's. In the reader’s point of view (those that only read Wikipedia articles for information, but do not edit articles) Wikipedia, over the years, has become known as an unreliable source to obtain needed information because anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, allowing for misinformation to be present in an article. I have had previous teachers and professors advise me to not use Wikipedia and not cite it as a source because it is not credible. Usually, other credible websites, books, and peer-reviewed journals are preferred. Wikipedia is a needs-based commitment platform for those who just read Wikipedia’s content/articles. Needs-based commitment states that a user would stay committed to a certain online community because they feel like it would be costly to leave a group (Kraut & Resnick, 2012). Readers of Wikipedia would remain committed to the community to gather information on a certain topic; they may feel like it would be costly to leave Wikipedia as they would lose a source to acquire information from. However, if people think Wikipedia is not reliable and do not go to it, Wikipedia may eventually fail and go away. To combat this negative image Wikipedia has acquired, it needs to emphasize that peer-reviewed articles and credible sources are required to be used in articles, not someone’s thoughts and/or biased opinions. Additionally, to emphasize how bots and moderators are also constantly making sure sources used in articles are credible (one of Wikipedia's rules) to provide the most accurate and credible information- that Wikipedia is a reliable source to get one’s information on a given topic.

To conclude, Wikipedia is a very successful online community that has elements that are both good, and ones that should be worked upon to make the community even better. Things Wikipedia are doing well on are its training modules and sandboxes as they help newcomers learn how to contribute and be a part of Wikipedia, it lessens the number of norm violations (by both spammers, trolls, and clueless newcomers), and keeps Wikipedia and the community working like it should be. It also does a great job on monitoring content in Wikipedia’s articles by having moderators and bots constantly checking in to ensure norms are upheld in the community. Some possible suggestions for Wikipedia to make it better is creating a new policy to only allow one account per person, so if somebody (notably spammers and trolls) repeatedly violates norms and rules, and eventually gets banned, they cannot just make another account and keep causing issues. Wikipedia also needs to create more extrinsic rewards- money, higher social status, awards, etc.- to motivate people to start contributing to Wikipedia’s articles and keep current users committed to keep making contributions. And lastly, to emphasize that Wikipedia ensures sources used in their articles are reliable to clear the misconception that Wikipedia is not a credible and good source of information. My suggestions should be considered because they are backed by theory and analysis of what successful communities have done to gain and maintain its users and success.

Works Cited

''Kraut, Robert E., and Paul Resnick. Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. The MIT Press, 2012.''