User:Leonaaklipi/report

Wikipedia Reflection
A multitude of internet users, including myself, utilize Wikipedia on almost a daily basis to gain quick and easy access to facts in regards to a variety of topics. Many interactions with the encyclopedia are short-lived, as individuals often hope to seek out a specific piece of information or briskly read about an entertaining topic. Wikipedia holds weaknesses in that many readers do not ever move onto the next stage of interaction, contributing to and editing articles. Likewise, the extent of interaction with the website is often limited by Wikipedia’s reputation on both the internet and throughout educational institutions.

Although Wikipedia offers an easy mode of editing and contributing to the wide-range of articles on their website, many users are often intimidated by the knowledgeable existing Wikipedians. The list of policies and guidelines is quite extensive, and although a large number of the rules are fairly straightforward and easy to grasp, this may be a deterring factor for Wikipedia. The “five pillars” are a simplified and condensed version of the policies that many people who are interested in contributing may opt to read instead, however, the information provided may result in potential editors feeling intimidated that their contributions will not be of proper quality. In order to combat this issue with the norms, I would recommend considering a period of review for any new Wikipedians (ex: <20 edits), where their contributions are politely reviewed and commented on by existing members of the community. These reviews would have the ability to continue to educate new members and to help provide a less intimidating start to their Wikipedia journey.

Moreover, many individuals are often hesitant to trust the information on the website, especially for academic related projects. Oftentimes, these fears stem from labels of Wikipedia as an unreliable source. While on one hand, these fears can be rational on the basis that Wikipedia is a volunteer edited encyclopedia and anyone is able to make changes, on the other hand, Wikipedia has extensive rules. The norms and regulations included by the website eliminate unreliable information as all content on the articles must be linked to a reliable source. The content is written in the editor’s own words, however, the basis of information comes from academic sources. In order to increase the credible reputation, Wikipedia could retract back to modes of active recruitment, where they establish their reliability as a source of accurate information and eliminate misconceptions. Enabling modes of active recruitment will allow for larger commitment to the website by casual users.

Initially, I was intimidated by the thought of editing an article for the encyclopedia, through the fear that my edits would be inadequate to the countless editors on Wikipedia. I chose to edit a stub class article, with a large amount of room for expansion. Through editing my article, I learned about the guidelines of Wikipedia, and how they impact the credibility and practicality of the website, as well as the community aspect. I learned that all of the information written must come from a reliable source, that is linked in the references page. Likewise, I also learned about the benefits of extracting information from Wikipedia, as it all must be written in a non-bias tone. Editing an article on a topic that was of interest to me was a rewarding experience, as I felt although I was contributing to people’s knowledge.

After becoming acquainted with the norms of Wikipedia, it is evident to me how to increase commitment and create more extensive reliability for the encyclopedia as the fears and misconceptions that I had about the website were corrected. In order to alleviate fears of breaking the rules, the period of review suggestion that I advise for Wikipedia stems from both descriptive and injunctive norms. As a new user makes changes to an article, they are able to reference other pages as a guide for correctly following the rules. Through these descriptive norms, new users will be more likely to conform to the guidelines. Injunctive norms are useful for users who are fearful of making a mistake when beginning to contribute. The review period would allow for an experienced Wikipedian to make comments highlighting both good and bad behavior by the user. This specific feedback may be helpful in being less intimidating but also being beneficial in adhering to the rules in further edits, as a user would strive to avoid negative comments.

Furthermore, active recruitment is necessary to establish a credible reputation and through this, be able to increase needs based commitment. Active recruitment begins with interpersonal recruitment, where people are able to use word of mouth to recruit users on the basis of knowledge of how the guidelines contribute to creating a reliable source of information. Although this may be impactful, advertising may be a method for Wikipedia to consider, as people could benefit from being shown the attractive features of Wikipedia, specifically the rules that promote each article being a reliable source. Advertisements including endorsements from teachers and professors are imperative as they will contribute to eliminating fears that Wikipedia is an unreliable source. Needs-based commitment is able to grow through highlighted benefits of advertising and word of mouth as individuals will be able to recognize the ease, convenience, and reliability, making it their first choice of website when looking for information. This commitment to the convenience factor will continue to create user retention, and create a cycle where these users recommend Wikipedia to their peers.

Wikipedia is unique in the sense that it is an encyclopedia that develops articles through an entirely volunteer process. Gaining a sense of motivation for newcomers to join the community and to become committed members of the community is extremely impressive based on the low extrinsic motivation and low identity and bonds based commitment. This is interesting to consider because Wikipedia is an extremely successful community without those aspects, but other communities who dabble in all sorts of the motivations and commitment types are less successful in creating an online community.