User:Sherrysyc/Report

Wikipedia is the page that I rely on most of the time when I search for unfamiliar information. From my past experience as a visitor, I used to think Wikipedia contained everything people searched. However, from an editor's perspective, the Wiki community is and will always be in the process of developing.

As a new editor and a student, I gained many benefits from the Wiki Education program. The first thing I did in the community was training. Training sessions taught me where to practice editing, how Wikipedians communicate with one another, why they appreciate others modifying their work, and many other things Wikipedians can do to foster the community. Although the training says it is welcomed, I was still hesitant to leave comments on other Wikipedian's talk pages. During the process of our Wikipedia assignment, I looked for stubs in exciting topics. When developing my article, I struggled to find reliable resources useable pictures.

After finishing my first Wikipedia article, I feel somewhat familiar with the community and the process of editing. The first thing I learned is the strict rule of plagiarism for Wikipedia articles. Because it is so easy to get involved in plagiarism, I realized that all works in the community take time and effort to research, read, understand, and rewrite. Also, my experience taught me the significance of copyrights when using others' work. I never knew that there were so many different copyrights before my Wiki Education training. Last but not least, I learned to write in a neutral tone. Personally, I think this is the hardest part to understand and follow. Everyone has opinions and thoughts when taking and expressing information. One of the feedback from my TA for my first draft is to modify my word choices to make the paragraph looks more neutral. Before receiving her advice, I never noticed that I had implemented my opinions by choosing particular words. Meanwhile, from this feedback, I learned that it is essential to have other Wikipedians read and edit one another's work.

I appreciate the editors' contribution to the community and out-group viewers. Here I want to point out one difficulty I experienced when searching for the article I want to improve. The approach I learned from class says to look for stubs, but I find it hard to find the stubs that I can contribute when practicing myself. By saying this, I mean that there are various reasons one article could be categorized as a stub. But all stubs are listed only by topic. I had to click on each of the pages. I feel I could help learn why it is a stub. Most of the time, I find that I cannot make the amount of contribution the article needs. So I would suggest other than list stubs by topic or level of importance, Wikipedia could try to list them by what the article is missing, such as resource, length, neutral tone, etc. Based on the persuasive techniques discussed in BSOC, it will increase the chance of answering requests if requirements are easy to find. Categorizing stubs based on needs makes it easier for editors to find requests because editors have different preferences when editing stubs. Some of them may enjoy researching, while others like to re-wording articles.

Also, I learned that only a minority of active users regularly contribute to the English Wikipedia community. Based on my experience with other online platforms, I would suggest Wikipedia generate monthly and annual reports for individuals Wikipedians and groups. By sending a monthly report that includes the corresponding Wikipedian's contribution, the community recognizes each editor's effort. Another element I suggest adding to the report is a vague percentage placement of the Wikipedian's contribution in the big community. The placement will possibly serve as an external and internal intrinsic motivation depending on the type of commitment Wikipedians have with the community. If the Wikipedian contributes for a greater good - normative commitment - the report may be an intrinsic encouragement. If the Wikipedian contributes due to bond-based or need-based commitment, the report may be an extrinsic motivation. Other than summarizing Wikipedian's activity motivate activity in the community. Report for Wikipedian groups might also facilitate bond-based commitment within the group. Despite the possible benefits, I believe the report will generate. I think it is vital to keep the report private for every Wikipedian. Although publicly accessible reports may encourage competition hence increasing the level of activity in the community, it could also decrease editors’ intrinsic motivation and lead to gaming of motivation. Since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, I believe intrinsic motivation and commitment for greater goods would better foster the Wikipedia community.

In conclusion, my experience on Wikipedia demonstrates the welcome environment towards newcomers and the collaboration within the community. But since the world is constantly evolving, Wiki pages require updating regularly. Hopefully, my suggestion of adding another way to organize stubs and generating private reports could help to motivate activities.