User:Kbill98/reflection

Introduction
"Online communities will inevitably die without a constant supply of newcomers" reveals social psychologist Robert E. Kraut as he emphasizes the importance of recruitment of newcomers for online communities though design claims in his work Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design (2012, p. 182). The recruitment of newcomers is the saving grace for online communities and one of the most important ways to secure their longevity. Wikipedia is no stranger to this, as the site has been a host to dedicated contributors for over two decades. To understand the norms, formalities, and onboarding processes for newcomers to online communities, I was tasked with becoming a "newbie" on Wikipedia myself. Over the course of my final semester as a communications student at Northeastern University, I created my own Wikipedia account Kbill98, took various training modules to learn Wikipedia's functions, and ultimately produced a polished Wikipedia article The Mamba Mentality: How I Play. Throughout the journey, I experienced various challenges that come with learning the functions of a new community but was able to find help from fellow Wikipedians and see my fellow classmates also have productive communications with established Wikipedians. However, often the guidance from others wasn't always enough to help me understand how to use Wikipedia's somewhat archaic user interface. In reflecting on my Wikipedia experience, it is evident that Wikipedia is an overall positive online community, but more can be done to improve the platform to better the experiences of newcomers.

The Writing Process
Before creating a well-written and research contribution to Wikipedia, one must go through a learning process to understand the various functions and affordances of the platform. Unlike most other newbies on the platform, because I was a part of a capstone class, I had access to the Wikiedu program which had many helpful resources for first-time editors. The program included various modules for helping learn Wikipedia functions such as creating sandboxes, adding citations, and knowing the differences between the wikicode and the visual editor. These trainings were helpful in order to visualize how the various processes on Wikipedia work, but are not available to all new contributors on Wikipedia. Without these, I would have felt extremely overwhelmed by the vastness of the community and would not have enjoyed the editing process. Having these modules available as an option for all newcomers to the platform would be very useful to get them acclimated to Wikipedia with making their user pages and edits.

Despite the convenient training modules offered to me, the archaic nature of the Wikipedia interface still left a lot of challenges for myself and my classmates as newbies. Even with these trainings, new Wikipedia contributors are left with attempting to decipher the often confusing "wikihelp" pages that do not cater to those who don't fully understand the Wikipedia lingo and affordances. Additionally, being able to sift through a page's edit history, find user pages, and even track one's own progress through the "watch pages" is extremely difficult as a newbie. In Kraut's work, he makes a connection between "easy-to-use tools" and "increases in the amount that gets done" (2012, p. 27) Other than past use of writing on social media platforms and some blog sites, I had no real experience creating material on a site with such technically focused functions and "code like" structures such as the source editor. Creating to-do list functions where new users can track the progress of their article as they edit, move to main space, and complete certain tasks would make the site more easily digestible to those who aren't familiar with that type of style.

It would be extremely beneficial in general for the platform to update their interface to be more modern, with easier-to-understand layouts that will encourage more newbies to continue contributing after the early stages. If Wikipedia wants to continue its longevity and even grow in popularity, it has to keep up with the changes that are occurring in other similar online communities. Although I won't be contributing to Wikipedia past this capstone class because this experience was for a school assignment, if the interface was more accessible there would be a higher chance of me continuing to contribute.

Wikipedian Interactions
"Because they lack experience, when newcomers try to participate, they imperil the work that other community members have already performed" is the basis for many of the interactions I had with Wikipedians while creating my article and through the editing process (Kraut, 2012, p. 179). When encountering my first roadblock after entering the Wikipedia mainspace, I had my first interactions with other Wikipedians. However, this was not necessarily by choice. Due to my article being about a non-fiction autobiography, I believe it was imperative for me to include an image of the book cover in my article just as many other similar articles have done. As compared to writing on other platforms in the past (blogs as mentioned previously) I had never had to deal with issues of copyright as I did with trying to incorporate an image on Wikipedia that hadn't previously been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons database.

After my "non-free image" had been added to my newly moved article, user JJMC89 bot who is tasked with making "repetitive automated or semi-automated edits" removed the image less than two hours later. After it was removed, I tried re-adding the photo, and it was again removed by the same user. I directed a question to the Wikipedia:Media Copyright Questions page regarding the rules of who owns the rights to a book cover image (which has now been deleted by the page). The response wasn't in-depth and they directed me to find a better source for the image. The original copyright information was quite difficult to find, something even my extremely experienced Wikipedian professor has trouble understanding the ins and outs of. Additional interactions I had with other Wikipedian's came with me reaching out to others to ask for guidance on specific questions or wanting experienced Wikipedia's to review my article. I went to Lenticel's user page to ask if my article should be linked to any other relevant categories as they had put it in "autobiography" and "books about American sportspeople" interaction:link. They simply directed me to a help page and didn't offer much genuine feedback or ideas. I also attempted to receive feedback from an established Wikipedian and have yet to receive a reply interaction:link.

Although I never experienced truly negative communication, I believe there could be more structure put in place for newbies to communicate with older contributors and find answers to questions. I would propose creating a newbie/oldbie mentorship program. As Kraut's design claim 33 explains, "people will be more willing to contribute to an online group when the group is small rather than large" (2012, p. 63). Wikipedia is a very large community but assigning a mentor to a new contributor might make the community feel a little more manageable when trying to find one's footing. It would be a voluntary process, where older contributors can opt-in if they are interested in guiding a newer contributor through Wikipedia's foundational steps. They can help them understand functions, give them specific edits and feedback, and personally guide them to different help functions and places to ask the right questions. This wouldn't only make the newcomer experience easier, but would allow for both parties to establish more connections and build their own relationships within Wikipedia.

Conclusions
It is evident that "Wikipedia is both a community and an encyclopedia" as the platform has several elements of community while also trying to create well-written research work to share with the world (Reagle, 2010). The site has solid core beliefs and goals where they have stronger moderation and may not want to change much of their interface out of fears of changing the platform's identity. However, reflecting upon my time as a newcomer on Wikipedia has allowed me to come to conclusions about the platform as a whole and its future as technology and social platforms continue to advance. While many still turn to Wikipedia to start a research journey or get basic information about a subject, new phenomena like social media and AI have become wildly popular for this. However, Wikipedia is a well-structured and very useful tool for individuals all over the globe. I would argue that more platforms should model Wikipedia's "good faith collaborative culture" which many areas of the internet lack (Reagle, 2010). If Wikipedia hopes to ensure its continued longevity the possible changes I have discussed in terms of updating the user interface and having a more structured process for newcomers may want to be considered.