User:Skelley01/Report

Wikipedia as a whole, has curated a certain reputation of being unreliable. Because it is a community that anyone can edit, students growing up in the internet age have heard time and time again that Wikipedia is not a credible source. However, the collaboration of people from all over the internet has actually turned Wikipedia into a vast source of notable and credible information. Wikipedia itself may not be a credible source, but the platform and the community have worked tirelessly to ensure the information presented is free from errors, incorrect citations, and spam.

I think that one way Wikipedia could be more successful in creating a community of dedicated editors is adapting the Wikiedu modules to be applicable and required for all new Wikipedia contributors. I personally found the information provided in the Wikiedu modules to be informative and helpful in my journey of improving an article. Despite Wikipedia having a fairly low barrier to entry, anyone can create an account and start editing, the many lists and pages of rules can be intimidating to a new user. One thing I do think Wikipedia is doing well and should continue doing is having general talk page rules at the top of each article's talk page, with links to longer articles describing rules and norms in detail.

In general, I already think that Wikipedia is doing an excellent job preventing issues such as trolls and scammers. For example, when the Wikipedia page for Jeremy Renner was being repeatedly vandalized to say that he is a velociraptor, the page was able to be locked to prevent further vandalism. However, in a community like Wikipedia, which is actively seeking contributions to their site, locking down a page about a current actor prevents useful contributions from being made. As of now, the page is semi-protected, meaning that it cannot be edited by unregistered users. By ensuring people have to create an active account in order to edit certain pages, it keeps out bots, and people who are only interested in vandalizing certain pages. However, because Wikipedia accounts are easy and free to create, losing access to a certain account may not be a blow that stops vandalism. Overall, spammers and trolls are always going to find a way in, and I think Wikipedia has done a good job preventing that but by being more proactive with account creation and editing specifics, it could be an even stronger community.

Another recommendation I have for Wikipedia is to enhance motivation to edit certain articles. When trying to find a stub article suitable to edit, I found the user interface to be confusing, and I ended up choosing an article not on the stub list at all. People are more likely to contribute when given a specific task, as seen with other online communities. People are more likely to contribute to an online community if the requests to contribute are simple and clear, stress elements that are beneficial to the community and include goals that are realistic to the community and clearly expressed. Currently, the list of stubs on Wikipedia are organized by topic, but not necessarily by importance. People may be more willing to contribute to stub articles if certain ones in need of improvement were presented on the Wikipedia homepage. Taking a page from the community Movie Lines, which ran an experiment where when people signed up they were given a goal of a number of movies to rate. Users given a specific and reasonable goal were more likely to rate more movies than users not given a goal or given an unreasonable goal. Wikipedia could take a page from this book and give new users recommendations of articles to edit when they first sign up. This would not only guide the newcomer experience but also contribute to the overall betterment of the community by giving attention to specific pages.

Wikipedia is an absolutely massive community with a massive number of articles that cover literally any topic imaginable. Because the site and topics covered are so broad, commitment seems to be an area where Wikipedia struggles. While there are so many people who are fully dedicated to Wikipedia, most people who interact with the site are readers or only edit a few times. When looking at commitment in online communities, there are two types, identity based and bonds based. Identity based commitment refers to people joining a community because you feel like a part of the community and want to see it succeed. The other bonds based, refers to feeling connected to specific members of the community. Wikipedia is set up to enable bonds-based commitment, users have unique usernames meaning someone knows who they are interacting with. However, the purpose of Wikipedia as a community means that much communication between members happens in relation to editing certain articles. I found this to be my experience, even though I interacted with my classmates and instructor using Wikipedia features like talk pages, I didn’t feel like I got any closer to them through the use of online interaction.

Wikipedia, while being a place people can interact based on shared interests, seems much more catered to normative commitment as opposed to affective commitment. Normative commitment is a sense of obligation to a community, rather than reasons for being there being purely emotion based. People who have a lot of knowledge or have done research on a specific topic may feel the need to contribute to that topic’s Wikipedia page. Alternatively, if a user spots an error on Wikipedia they may feel an obligation to correct it. Because Wikipedia is based on a traditional encyclopedia, the goal of spreading accurate information is clear and draws people to participate in the common goal.

In conclusion, Wikipedia has done an excellent job building a prestigious online community. However, because of its prestigious nature there are some changes that could be made in order to invite and include new contributors while still working to keep out trolls and spammers.