User:Kaig2000/Report

Reflection
Throughout the first half of the quarter we explored, interacted with and contributed to the Wikipedia community. This experience was supplemented by weekly discussions regarding online communities, specifically, what makes an online community successful or unsuccessful. This experience, combined with our discussion, has equipped me with the tools to better evaluate wikipedia’s successes and shortcomings as an online community.

Throughout the last several weeks I set about revamping a stub article for the down jacket. In its original form, the article described the composition of the garment and offered a brief history on its creation. I wanted to flush out the article, providing a detailed history of the jacket’s fashion evolution while also clarifying and crediting the creator of the jacket. I learned overtime how to better navigate wikipedia’s editing tools and designated pages, albeit with considerable difficulty and time allotted to doing so.

One of my greatest concerns regarding the Wikipedia and Wikimedia learning tools were the weekly trainings and accompanying quizzes we reviewed. To preface, I believe these trainings are a fantastic idea that allow “newcomers” the ability to better assimilate into the community. I understand from discussions and lectures that socializing newcomers is pivotal to ensuring a productive and positive community. The idea of these trainings, a fixed method of socialization, required we follow a timetable and a set of stages to gain the knowledge needed to make substantiative contributions (Lecture 2/3/21). In theory, this is an effective system however, as a visual learner, the textual nature of these explanations left me feeling overwhelmed. To Wikipedia’s credit they do offer images and an occasional video however, I found myself  gaining less from the training and opting instead to learn the functions on my own through trial and error. While definitely not an intended barrier, or a cost of entry, the overwhelming explanations and complexity of Wikipedia’s contributive tools may be factors that turn potential users away out of sheer frustration. As we’ve come to understand, while barriers often ensure only the committed proceed, they may also make it harder for newcomers to contribute and few will stick around. So, while the intended costs to entry are low (anyone can edit on Wikipedia) learning how to successfully make contributions -in my experience- can be tedious and difficult.

I would emphatically suggest that Wikimedia offer more screen recorded videos that walk users through each step of a given lesson, rather than simply relying on written explanations. These videos should also include explanations for navigating the pages and how contributors can communicate with peers and instructors. During the “peer review” stage of our project one of my reviewers wrote on my talk page that she hoped she was leaving her “indication of review” in the “right place”. Her doubt suggested that I was not the only student struggling to navigate the editing side of Wikipedia. Additionally, I remember my professor noting that finding where other students had written their drafts may be difficult as there were a couple of places to do so. I think there is a great need for the simplification of navigating to different pages. Perhaps offering links on one’s profile or creating only a single place for editors to dump their drafts.

Further, I would also suggest that Wikipedia consider continuing to improve upon the profiles of individuals and spaces allowed for discussion to better ensure commitment. As discussed in lecture, we understand that over its history Wikipedia has seen a definite decline in contributors. Throughout the duration of this project I wondered how a site like Wikipedia might better retain its contributor base. While prestige and recognition serve an important role, I feel that Wikipedia might benefit from putting more emphasis on the community aspect of its platform. Bonds-based commitment is defined as the emotional attachment an individual feels towards other members in their community. This bond is important as it encourages users to return for the sake of these relationships, often regardless of whether or not they enjoy the platform (Lecture, 1/13). I noticed how impersonal the Wikipedia community appeared to be. People were referred to solely by username, profiles were limited to sandbox drafts and contributions, and everyone was faceless. There is a community, but it felt detached and cold.

I strongly believe that fostering a community -giving people profiles pages where they can describe themselves and their academic interests- might personalize the community and offer a chance for individuals to bond over topics and perhaps pursue relevant articles as teams. Further, creating additional forums for people to meet and get to know one another (not discuss edits, flagging disputes etc.) might also help to encourage bonds-based commitment. Helping to establish these bonds could ensure that community members keep coming back while also creating a space for small groups to organize and accomplish tasks (lecture 1/13). While I recognize that the impersonal approach ensures neutral reportage, I feel that the systems of regulation Wikipedia already has in place would do an excellent job preserving the reliability of writing.

I would like to conclude by acknowledging a positive aspect of this project to balance the feedback noted above. Up until this assignment I’d always been told that Wikipedia was an unreliable source of information. If I’ve learned anything from this assignment it's that community officials spend an incredible amount of time and energy ensuring that the information published to their site is reliable and well-sourced. The, “can be edited by anyone” statement often used by academics holds less weight to me now as I recognize the systems that are in place to monitor and moderate inappropriate behavior. I believe the improvements noted above, should they be implemented in any capacity, would only serve to better the Wikipedia community.