User:Kristen RL/Report

My experience improving the Wikipedia article, “Obligatory Dangerousness Criterion”, was positive due to the textbook readings, lectures, cases, and discussions. From finding a stub to publishing my article, I noted several ways that Wikipedia could improve the community, such as creating personalization mechanisms and adjusting the web design. Also, I was socialized through a combination of institutional and individual socialization, which taught me the benefits of combining both forms of socialization. During the Wikipedia project, I found that some of the methods discussed in class for reducing bad behavior applied, while others, such as reminding users about rules and guidelines, did not.

I had a difficult time finding a stub article that interested me because of the vast number of topics, which is why Wikipedia would benefit from designing mechanisms that personalize content to users. Based on the articles a user edits, Wikipedia could curate a list of articles needing updates that align with each user’s interests. Kraut and Resnick (2011, pp.237-238) recommend personalization mechanisms, claiming, “sites could determine what to display for a particular user through text-processing algorithms that select the most relevant content...likely to be liked by a particular person”. As discussed in our Day 8 Zooniverse discussion (slide 3), recommendations based on each user’s interests can increase participation and engagement by making it easier to find content each user enjoys. This recommendation should be taken more seriously than advice from a new user because a newcomer may have little commitment, especially identity-based commitment, because they are new to the site (Kraut and Resnick, 2011, p.180). As a result, experienced users may question if the new user, not yet being an experienced “Wikipedian”, can create a personalization mechanism that aligns with the community’s goals (Kraut & Resnick, 2011, p.78-79). When the recommendation comes from an experienced user with identity-based commitment, the recommended personalization mechanism seems more likely to align with Wikipedians’ goals.

To increase the site’s credibility, Wikipedia should adjust their web design. According to Kraut and Resnick (2011, p.266), one of the “influences on credibility cited most often [is] the design look of the site (e.g., professional look, pleasing graphics)”. Wikipedia should make it easier to navigate the site by making the tabs (such as “Read”, “Edit”, and “View”) different colors so users can easily distinguish between tabs, thus preventing them from clicking the wrong one. For example, Open Humans (n.d.) helps users distinguish the study page they are on by providing the study’s logo. Whereas Open Humans clearly distinguishes pages, I struggled to efficiently distinguish between tabs in Wikipedia since they are the same size, color, and boldness. This recommendation should be taken more seriously than random advice from a new user because I have greater experience navigating the site, therefore I am more aware of the design flaws and how they impact users. A new user’s lack of experience in the community would make it challenging to know which designs need improving because they have not spent as much time on the site and a “lack of social acceptance” (Newcomers (Part 2), slide 9). New users lack familiarity with the community, which adds to the fear that newcomers will “change the nature of the community by overwhelming prior established norms” (Lin et al., 2017, p.133). These challenges make it difficult for a newcomer to accurately identify and alter design issues in ways that would benefit –and be accepted by – the community. From my experience using Wikipedia, I am more aware of the impacts of Wikipedia’s site design and how it can be improved in ways that benefit the community.

The combination of active participation in Wikipedia while simultaneously completing WikiEdu tutorials provided both institutional and individual socialization. Editing in Wikipedia and practicing in sandboxes provided individual socialization through informal training so I could learn from personal experience. WikiEdu tutorials provided institutional socialization through clear instructions and structured tutorials to help me successfully contribute to Wikipedia. Researchers, including Mugar et al. (2014, p.1) in the Zooniverse study, support the combination of formal and informal learning because “formal education alone does not convey the necessary tacit knowledge about work practices needed for good performance,” which “can be conveyed instead through informal learning experiences. . . whereby newcomers start off by engaging in simple practices and observing more experienced members”. Combining step-by-step tutorials on WikiEdu and informal participation in Wikipedia taught me that one type of socialization is not necessarily better. Straightforward guidance and rules, combined with the opportunity to learn through active participation, can effectively teach newcomers the norms of a community.

When it comes to concepts that applied to my experience with Wikipedia, I found that methods of reducing negative behavior, specifically “reversion tools” (Kraut & Resnick, 2011, p.135) applied. Wikipedia allows users to “[change] content to remove problematic parts,” (Norms and Regulation (Part 2), slide 28), as when “Brown Haired Girl” edited my sandbox so other users would not see it. This ability to edit others’ content is unique because other communities (like Facebook, Yelp, or others we discussed) do not allow users to physically alter another user’s problematic posts. Concepts that did not apply included reminders: “Explicit rules and guidelines increase the ability for community members to know the norms, especially when it is less clear what others think is acceptable” (Kraut & Resnick, 2011, p.148). While WikiEdu clearly states guidelines, I argue that Wikipedia itself does not. Before publishing an edit, Wikipedia does not remind users of editing rules. To reduce the prevalence of these errors, Wikipedia should add reminders.

Ultimately, Wikipedia should implement personalization mechanisms and adjust their web design in order to improve their community. Through the Wikipedia project, I experienced socialization and learned the benefits of combining formal and informal learning. Lastly, while methods of reducing negative behavior applied to Wikipedia, the site does not apply methods of reminding users about specific guidelines that must be followed.

Word count: 978

References

Open Humans (n.d.). Explore and Share Your Data. https://www.openhumans.org/explore-share/

Hill, B. M. (2020). ''Newcomers (Part 2). PowerPoint''. Slide 9.

Hill, B. M. (2020). ''Norms and Regulation (Part 2). PowerPoint.'' Slide 28.

Hill, B. M. (2020). ''Day 08 Zooniverse. Pdf.''

Kraut, R. E., & Resnick, P. (2011). Building successful online communities evidence-based social design. MIT Press.

Lin, Zhiyuan, Niloufar Salehi, Bowen Yao, Yiqi Chen, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2017. “Better When It Was Smaller? Community Content and Behavior After                       Massive Growth.” In Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. Palo, Alto, CA: AAAI Press. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM17/paper/view/15628

Mugar, G., Østerlund, C., Hassman, K. D., Crowston, K., & Jackson, C. B. (2014). Planet hunters and seafloor explorers. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW '14, p.1. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531721