User:MomokoT/sandbox/Report

Wikipedia Evaluation Essay
When I wish to learn the basics of a topic, Wikipedia is one of my top choices. Wikipedia is a distinctive online encyclopedia. People can reuse and remix Wikipedia content for free; everyone is welcome to collaborate on articles. Due to the crowdsourced nature of Wikipedia, the community of editors has created a set of policies and guidelines to help the site run more efficiently. As with the other cases we discussed in class, Wikipedia has advantages and disadvantages. Its breadth and inclusiveness make it the most giant and widely used online encyclopedia available, helping countless numbers of people to learn more. In this reflective essay, I will provide three detailed pieces of advice for Wikipedia’s community,  using my experience and theories we covered in class to support these claims.

My first advice to the community is to create a more transparent reward system to give barnstars. Barnstars are virtual awards that Wikipedia editors can give each other to recognize exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia. The editor who decided to give a barnstar writes a message on the recipient's talk page and adds a picture of the barnstar to the message using Wikipedia's image syntax. Then the recipient could choose to add barnstar to their user page. Indeed, this is a good way to increase not only extrinsic motivations but also the bond-based commitment between the giver and recipient. However, some editors might use barnstars to reward others in a biased way, such as those who share the same interests with them, even though they did not make substantial contributions. For example, new users like me don't know how long it takes to receive my first barnstar and have no idea how to get one. Also, since the barnstars are not given through a standard system, editors might receive barnstars that do not correspond to their contributions. Therefore, to improve the barnstar system, I advise creating a more transparent reward system to give barnstars. Each barnstar would have transparent, clarified criteria explaining why the editor is given this award. After making meaningful contributions to the community, the editors would receive corresponding points. Based on the complexity and importance, the editors would be given different amounts of points for different types of contributions. Wikipedia could also create a board showing top contributors so that more people could see the editors' efforts. This kind of reward system could help increase the motivation and engagement of the Wikipedia community. However, as we discussed in class, with the gamification of the platform, there could be a potential trade-off between engagement and commitment. Editors might make fewer deep contributions. The reward system should be designed carefully to support the mission of Wikipedia.

My second suggestion for the Wikipedia platform is to appropriately increase the identity requirement and revise its warning and sanction policies. When I edit an article, I don't need to log in to my account. While this shows that Wikipedia encourages everyone to participate in improving articles, this brings the Cheap Pseudonym Problem. When an account is warned or banned, users can easily create a new account and continue the harmful actions. In addition, when a user modifies an article without an account, this is not beneficial for communication and help between users. For example, when I uploaded a changed version of my article, an editor deleted one piece of my content, but I didn't know who the editor was and why the content was deleted. Also, when I first tried to edit the article, the system told me that my apartment's IP address had been blocked from editing Wikipedia. This may be because a user has previously been blocked for using my apartment's IP to do something bad, but this could also affect innocent users like me who want to contribute to the community. Therefore, Wikipedia should be more targeted in its punishments and have a one-person, one-account system to penalize bad behavior without affecting other users. These improvements could help ensure that its community of editors is productive, respectful, and complies with its policies.

My final suggestion is to improve the onboarding process for newcomers in Wikipedia, especially for editors. The WikiEdu platform is an excellent program to support educators and students in learning the basics of Wikipedia. However, the program is primarily geared towards higher education institutions and classroom-based learning, so it may be less helpful for individuals who are simply interested in contributing to Wikipedia as volunteers. There are several things Wikipedia could try to welcome and retain more editors. First, provide a clear and concise introduction to Wikipedia's policies, norms, and editing tools that can help new editors feel more confident and capable as they start editing. Instead of showing all the rules which can intimidate new users, introduce the essential rules first. Second, offering interactive tutorials and mini-projects that can help new editors learn the basics of editing on Wikipedia, and they can provide a fun and engaging way to get started without affecting the community. Third, Wikipedia could hold some online or in-person events where people come together to discuss and edit Wikipedia articles on a specific topic, which could be a great way to learn how to edit Wikipedia and get involved with the community.

In conclusion, Wikipedia is already a successful and influential platform with a vibrant and engaged community of editors who work together to maintain and improve the site. Many experienced editors shared the identity-based commitment to keep improving this community. Suppose the Wikipedia platform could create a more transparent reward system, increase the identity requirement, revise its warning and sanction policies, and improve the onboarding process for newcomers. In that case, it could build a more supportive, collaborative, and inclusive community that welcomes and encourages participation from diverse individuals.