User:Rijahmazhar/sandbox/Reflection

Throughout this semester, it was very interesting to learn about the Wikipedia community and participate in it as a contributor. I never realized how complex the Wikipedia community is and all the rules, regulations, and policies that exist and govern the platform. Like many other online communities, Wikipedia has its fair share of challenges that it has to tackle. For instance, the community has to deal with various trolls or vandals that damage its reputation and initiating newcomers into the community, who may disrupt the processes due to a lack of knowledge and understanding of guidelines.

In their work Building Successful Online Communities, Kraut and Resnick (2011) highlight the importance of user contributions in building an effective online community. The Wikipedia community is built off this notion that anyone can create or edit content, registered or unregistered. The free encyclopedia has volunteers across the globe that make a majority of the contributions. Essentially, without members contributing, the community would be nonexistent. Wikipedia also offers rewards to its contributors for their work in the form of barnstars. According to Kraut and Resnick’s (2011) design claim 23, “Rewards – whether in the form of status, privileges, or material benefits – motivate contributions” (p. 53). Wikipedians who receive barn stars on their talk pages may be more inclined to contribute to the community in the future. However, the fact that anyone can give a user a barnstar may make the reward seem less important than if it were to be awarded by some committee or admin user. My recommendation to Wikipedia in this instance would be to limit the users that can give barnstars so that it feels more important and sincere once it’s received. As one of our tasks, we were asked to give another user WikiLove and a barnstar which felt insincere. I feel like getting a barnstar that’s limited and uncommon would be more motivating for those who do get one.

According to Kohn (1993), rewards may actually have a negative impact on the quality of a user’s work. However, I do feel Wikipedians contribute because they are intrinsically motivated to do so, and even though there are certain extrinsic motivators, the former is more prevalent. As we saw in class, many users on Wikipedia actually discourage others from giving them WikiLove or barnstars (i.e. rewards) as they are strictly there to edit or create content for the online community.

Kraut and Resnick’s (2011) design claim 18 states, “Performance feedback, especially positive feedback – can enhance motivation to perform tasks” (p. 47). I feel like the Wikipedia community enables users to give and receive a lot of feedback using the “talk” page. As I was working on my Wikipedia contribution, I received feedback from my peers and other users which I thought was quite helpful and encouraged me to work on my draft to make it better. The Wikipedia Teahouse, which is designed to help new users adapt to the community, also left a comment on my user talk page asking me to visit their page if I had any questions or needed any help from more experienced Wikipedians.

According to Wikipedia’s information page, there are around 250,000 newcomers on the platform each month. As mentioned by Kraut and Resnick (2011), newcomers are essential to the functioning of an online community. These members have a lot to offer to an online community as they come in with fresh ideas and opportunities. Newcomers are necessary and valuable to an online community, but still pose a challenge as they are unfamiliar with many of the writing guidelines and policies that exist. This may irk more experienced members who like the smooth functioning of the online community. One recommendation that I would have for Wikipedia, relating to the Seven Ages of Wikipedians article, would be to make it a requirement to mention a users age on their page. This way, more experienced users can immediately see what stage a user is at (i.e WikiInfant or WikiChild) and help newer members transition into the community.

According to Kraut and Resnick’s (2011) design claim 18, “When newcomers have friendly interactions with existing community members soon after joining a community, they are more likely to stay longer and contribute more” (p. 208). As mentioned before, I had the experience of receiving a message from the Wikipedia Teahouse which helps newer members adjust to the community in a friendly environment. Wikipedia also established a “Please do not bite newcomers” behavioral guideline that encourages older users to interact with newcomers in a welcoming and helpful manner. I think Wikipedia has many resources in place that can help a new member transition smoothly into a Wikipedian. One recommendation that I would have for Wikipedia would be to make it a requirement for new members to go through tutorials before they can edit in the main space. This will prevent errors and increase the newcomers understanding of the community guidelines along with making them more committed. According to Aronson and Mills (1959) in their work The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group, “…Individuals who go through a severe initiation to gain admission to a club or organization should tend to think more highly of that organization than those who do not go through the severe initiation to gain admission” (p. 177). Spending time on the tutorials would act as an initiation as newcomers would have to put in their time learning about the community and completing simple tasks before they can be a part of it.

Once a member is committed to an online community, they are more likely to help the community as a whole by contributing more, answering questions, and giving feedback (Kraut and Resnick, 2011). According to Kraut and Resnick’s (2011) design claim 4, “Providing a collection of individuals with a name or other indicates that they are members of a common group increases their identity-based commitment to the community” (p. 82). I think by giving themselves the title of “Wikipedians” members increase their identity-based commitment which makes them want to benefit the community as a whole and comply with its rules, regulations, and policies. Wikipedia also does a great job with making their guidelines explicit and accessible to anyone, which may lead to an increase in members identity-based commitment. Prior to my Online Communities course, I had no idea that Wikipedians had such a strong community. In fact, I did not even know that there was a term out there to refer to the individuals that edit pages on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia also has a strong policy when it comes to moderating the community. According to Kraut and Resnick’s (2011) design claim 4, “Moderation decided by people who are members of the community, who are impartial, and who have limited or rotating power is perceived as more legitimate thus more effective” (p. 134). Wikipedia has formed an Arbitration Committee in order to resolve issues on the site. Although I did not experience any trouble with other editors, it was interesting to look at profiles in class of members that had been previously banned from the community due to misbehavior determined by the Arbitration Committee. The fact that the arbitrators are appointed by Jimmy Wales makes its decision-making more legitimate. Wikipedia also implements various different bans depending on the violation. I think having different kinds of bans, such as the interaction ban, is a good strategy. Instead of prohibiting a member from the site completely, Wikipedia may forbid communication between two editors that are facing problems.

While working on my Wikipedia article on Byron Rushing (which was an already existing article, but required expansion) I expected to receive more feedback from other editors on the online community. However, I found that the only people that interacted with the page (on the talk section) were my peers. It would have been interesting to have a more experienced user look at the page and leave a comment on the talk page. The edits suggested by my peer reviewers were also minor, so I didn’t really know what else to add into the article. One of the most interesting things was going over other members user pages to see all the contributions that they made to the community and the barnstars they received. It was also hilarious to see fights between editors and how that was handled by Wikipedia. I’m also surprised at how Wikipedia is based of “good faith” and people trust that editors will convey honest and factual information in an unbiased manner.

Here's all the information I added into the existing Byron Rushing article.