User:Lbelfor/Reflections

Through applying the course material with an analytical lens I have learned about my personal engagement with online communities, and therefore, the pro's and con’s of Wikipedia’s strategies and tactics.

Initially, writing an article and engaging with the Wikipedia community through editing and communicating with editors intimidated me. The task seemed daunting due to a preconception that only individuals with an elite set of knowledge contributed, and that experienced editors would destroy that whatever I contributed. I admire Wikipedia’s clear goal to establish a welcoming editing and contributing community, and to encourage boldness, however, the many pages of rules increased my intimidation.

When trying to choose an article topic I struggled to think of a subject in which I would experience the least amount of issues abiding to the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. However, I quickly realized that my first topic of choice would not reach the notable standard due to a lack of 3rd party references. Then, after completing my article about online-retailer, Everlane, I struggled with fulfilling the notability guidelines and maintaining a neutral tone. Without the guidance of Professor Hill, adhering to the Wikipedia guidelines would have been much more difficult, if not even impossible. It would have required having a strong desire and dedication to spending a great amount of time looking up and learning the guidelines for creating a Wikipedia worthy article.

From my intimidation, I learned and experienced the value of making an online community easy for newcomers to join and remain involved. The homepage of the community’s site needs to be simple and engaging- welcoming for all. Personally, I believe the homepage of Wikipedia to intimidating due to the amount of content, and the poor visibility of content specifically useful for newcomers. The cost of figuring out how to become a successful contributor would have easily given me a desire to quit. Therefore, as a new user, the importance of understanding the utilitarian model of commitment for online communities became evident to me.

The Sandbox alleviated some cost of a potential misstep and made Wikipedia more approachable, however the benefits it provides for newcomers could be more clearly promoted. A clearly identifiable section of the homepage dedicated to newcomers would ease the idea of contributing and could even encourage users to convert to contributors since it would help lower the cost.In addition, a place for those considering contributing would be helpful. Although, Wikipedia’s Teahouse provides a place for beginners to ask questions and engage with experienced wikipedians, it does not engage those that are interested in joining Wikipedia. It can be daunting joining an online community full of experienced users, especially, when there are a lot of rules and subcategories of guidelines. Providing a forum for intimidated potential users and newcomers lowers the initial cost of committing.

If Wikipedia’s interface design was updated to be more user-friendly for newcomers, the motivations and incentives for commitment differ for each user. I recognize that what may incentivize me to join Wikipedia could be quite different from others. Because contributing to Wikipedia was a class requirement, I was excited to give back to the Wikipedia community after “taking” from it for so many years, which is a reflection of intrinsic normative-reciprocity commitment. Based on this kind of intrinsic incentive, there was an increased personal need to have a higher level of socialization and community engagement since it was unlikely that I would experience an identity-based commitment due to my specific article topic (i.e. socially responsible fashion).However, I enjoyed seeing that “elite” Wikipedians had edited my article, such as a Wikipedian Content Expert for the Wiki Education Foundation and someone who works to settle Wikipedia drama/disputes. It created a sense of connection and bonds-based commitment, however it could have been increased if another user personally welcomed me.

Personally, the extrinsic motivation was not effective. Although the use of Barnstars is encouraging, they lack quantifiable meaning or further benefits. I did experience a desire to receive a Barnstar or be recognized for my article in some manner, but it seemed unattainable as a newcomer. Wikipedia could enhance the use of extrinsic motivation with a point system in which users receive points for improving stubs by topic. Then by reaching a quota of points per topic, the user would be welcomed into a group for that topic. This could theoretically enhance extrinsic and identity-based commitment.

Although Wikipedia is a successful dynamic community, in order to alleviate intimidation of potential contributors Wikipedia could condense resourceful content for newcomers and enhance extrinsic motivators.