User:Lortega3/Report

Many of us have known of Wikipedia for years, as it has become a recognizable staple in the web space that we know. Through the first project in the COM 481: Online Communities, in the process of contributing to an article, I’ve been able to learn more about the way this site functions and have been able to apply this knowledge to a much larger context; as I navigate across different online communities.

Prior to this class, there were several assumptions I held about Wikipedia. It seems like there was this shift throughout my youth where Wikipedia turned from the primary source of information one could turn to and became something my teachers steered us away from, due to “anyone being able to add and change information as they please”. Though I am unsure if the structure and limits have always been specific and constraining as they are now, I was surprised nevertheless when going through the process to find this.

Given this context, when thinking of advice or changes to the Wikipedia community, I’d say that an increase in engagement will come when looking at addressing the barriers to active recruitment. It seems that this site benefits from those drawn with internal motivations, which they happen to have a lot of, considering the amount of steps and restrictions in contributing to the community. The external motivations seem to be those taking classes like this one or working in some field related to Wikipedia. However, when drawing from the recruitment lecture videos, I think I think it’s important that as people are assessing communities, advertising is properly showing the attractive features in a clear way. I do believe strongly in the process of self-selection for a cite like this, so advertisements from celebrities is not the way.

Instead, with the perspective of a design student, I believe very strongly in the importance of good design, things should be both beautiful and functional (both are not separate from one another). Many of the distrust of the Wikipedia cite is that it seems to be outdated, despite its continuous upkeep of information through members. A redesign of wikipedia would also allow clarity in terms of rules and regulations. When looking through the page, there is an abundance of wordy information that is difficult to read or understand. I personally would probably not engage had I not been in this course. I remember the norms and regulation lecture, where it was emphasized to students that an absence of clear norms can make communities unfocused or ineffective, lead to conflict between community members, or make it difficult for new members to join and understand how to contribute effectively. The rules of Wikipedia are important, and though I don’t urge Wikimedia Foundation to change them, I think that the barriers to understand them through visual elements exist on the cite.

When reflecting on my personal perceptions, my experience engaging with the cite, and the knowledge I’ve gained on the function of online communities, I’d recommend to the Wikimedia Foundation a redesign of their page to boost coherency of their values, and the functional aspects of the community.