User:Sidetrackedsoph/Report

I expanded the wikipedia article about Christopher Larkin, a video game composer. I chose his article because it was something I'm personally passionate about, but I didn't realize that writing a biography of a living person would have extra layers of difficulty in terms of references. additionally, since I was writing about a visual-media music composer, it was sometimes hard for me to find references that objectively prove that Larkin scored a certain work. For example, Larkin's personal website listed the works he's scored, but I found out that self-published sources aren't approved by wikipedia as reliable because technically, anyone can claim anything about themself. In the case of some obscure films Larkin has scored, some of them didn't have websites, let alone ones that credited Larkin as its composer. It was usually IMDb that listed all these lesser-known works with Larkin credited as the composer, and I learned that IMDb is a highly controversial source for wikipedia because it's also an open-source contribution website. I ended up double-citing some of his works with his own website and IMDb per Kaylea's suggestion, but if I found myself having to delete many works from his list of works table I created just because IMDb was the only available source for that information. I encountered the same dilemma for some of the awards he'd won; the pre-existing references for two of his awards took me to a stale URL and therefore wasn't a reliable source anymore. I looked everywhere for another source that states he won the awards, but I couldn't find any. I know it's true because Larkin's instagram pictures show him holding the award in the venue and whatnot, but I knew that wasn't an option. Just as I was facing this problem, I came across a wiki page called But it's true! that addressed the concerns I was having about how verifiability on wikipedia works. That left me very impressed at how well wikipedia had covered all the bases in terms of contributor problems.

Besides this being an assignment, the most prominent reason I felt motivated to contribute to wikipedia was a sense of reciprocity. I felt a sense of normative commitment to give back to the community that I've benefit from countless times in the past. I think wikipedia already recognizes the power of people's desire to reciprocate, because they already ask for donations from readers with the sentiment of giving back to the website that delivers encyclopedic information for free. I think they could channel this energy into the way they attract newcomers- perhaps by advertising on the website with a slogan like "want to give back? become a wikipedian!" And then doubling down on identity-based commitment by making "wikipedian" seem like an identity newcomers are striving to become. I am already thoroughly impressed by all the training modules in wikiedu; I think they do very well at instilling the norms of being a wikipedia editor. Perhaps they could add introduction videos of experienced wikipedians talking about their journeys being an editor, so the experience feels more personal and newcomers have a role model of sorts they can envision themselves becoming like. Once newcomers get through the training modules and make their first edit, the identity of "wikipedian" is a badge of honor they can derive lots of intrinsic value from. I believe the community-based and gamification solutions have been covered by the existence of the Teahouse and TWA, both of which would also thrive from the popularization of the "wikipedian" identity.

What strikes me as unique about wikipedia is how well-regulated it is. In a sea of countless internet communities that exist, only the best few that have the perfect combination of good moderation, newcomer stream and member circulation, community size, norms and regulations, and conduct reinforcement can rise to the top of the online community food chain. Wikipedia was so successful in all these categories that it has become the quintessential internet encyclopedia. I sometimes even forget that it's technically an online community because of how well the website is run and how reliable everyone finds it. I didn't find myself being unsure of wikipedia norms at any point, because the newcomer introduction process was so clear and smooth. I haven't had to deal with spam or bad-faith users, and I know wikipedia is very good at dealing with them. All in all, My experience with wikipedia was a challenging but positive one, and I believe I'll be coming back to contribute more because I'm proud to be a wikipedian.