User:Sperry21/subpage

According to scholars Paul Resnick and Robert E. Kraut (2011), in order for an online community to thrive they must, “incorporate successive generations of newcomers to survive.” However, incorporating newcomers into an existing community, socializing them, and encouraging commitment and contribution can be a difficult task. During my involvement creating the Wikipedia page ipsy (company), I experienced newcomer initiation through many positive and negative interactions with admins and moderators. While the initiation process was frustrating and required timely contribution to the community, it affected my retention to the website and increased my overall appreciation of the Wikipedia community norms and it's members.

In the process of examining the seven ages of Wikipedia, I will argue that in to progress through the ages, a newcomer must undergo a severe initiation. As a consequence of difficult initiation, newcomers will effectively learn how to comply with Wikipedia's etiquette and norms, resulting in feelings of acceptance by established group members. Ultimately, once feeling accepted into the community, newcomers will begin to actively engage with the community as well as socialize with other members.

In the attempt to defend my argument, I will state the premise for which my thesis is based upon through examination of past studies, discuss my progression as a WikiInfant into a WikiYoungAdult through specific examples and interactions on the page ipsy (company), and provide recommendations for Wikipedia based upon the five basic problem Kraut and Resnick propose when discussing the challenges of dealing with newcomers and initiation.

Background
In their 1959 study, "The Effect of Severity of Initiation on Liking for a Group", scholars Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills studied the affects of severe initiation on newcomers. Individuals who go through a severe initiation to gain admission to a club or organization should tend to think more highly of that organization. They hypothesized, “that individuals who undergo an unpleasant initiation to become members of a group increase their liking for the group; that is, they find the group more attractive than do persons who become members without going through a severe initiation” While their hypothesis was validated through the scholars' observational study, they additionally were proven accurate with my own experience as a newcomer to the Wikipedia community.

Initial Thoughts and Process
I began my experience with the Wikipedia community as what the Seven Ages of Wikipedian's article notes, a “WikiInfant”. During this stage I began to familiarize myself with the community. My initial thoughts was that I lacked knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and was shocked at how large the community was. I began exploring the platform, identifying users and starting to think of a new page to add to the Wikipedia encyclopedia. As Kraut and Resnick note, “it is axiomatic that people won’t be able to contribute what a community needs unless they are aware of those needs and have the skills and resources to contribute them”. Wikipedia has a community portal in which contains lists of pages in need. Though this list was helpful, I chose to create a page about ipsy (company) due to my interest in the product, it’s reputable secondary sources from news outlets, as well as not associating it with a conflict of interest. One thing that I had to be careful before I started edited, was any possible issues of notability and neutrality.

Challenges with Newcomers
When dealing with newcomers, such as myself, Wikipedia attempts to solves the five basic problem Kraut and Resnick propose when discussing the challenges of dealing with newcomers. These problems are recruitment, selection, retention, socialization and protection. While I was recruited as a member through my online communities course assignment, Wikipedia went through their selection process by providing trainings before entering the community with the Wikipedia Essentials and Editing Basics tutorials. In the selection phase, "members who are a good fit find the community attractive and those who are not a good fit find it unattractive." The tutorials demonstrated the selection phase because it was a precursor of what was to come when you begin participating in the community. The tutorials instruct you of all the processes and somewhat complicated steps that go into creating your own public page. To some, this may appear undesirable because they are ignorant of the process and time it takes to participate in the community.

Moreover, once committing to the community through active engagement, online communities also struggle with retention, socialization, and protection. These issues were extremely prevalent in my wikipedia experience as a newcomer, and will be late discussed in the recommendations section.

Sandbox
After choosing a topic we were encouraged to start crafting our pages in our sandbox. Kraut and Resnick refer to a sandbox as a “safe space”. A newcomer wants to begin editing in their sandbox because they are “safe, isolated areas for exploration and skill development” Additionally, as stated in design claim 24, “sandboxes both speed up the learning process for newcomers and reduce the harm to the community that newcomers might otherwise cause.”

My first edits in my sandbox allowed me to be vulnerable. I did not have to worry about all the rules and regulations with Wikipedia because my page was private and free from being marked for deletion. As time began to pass, I weaved through my sandbox, receiving my first edits from User:Reagle who provided feedback on my talk page and challenged me to continue improving my work in relation to meet Wikipedia's requirements for a perfect article. This was my first understanding of exactly how strict and selective the process would be when moving my page to to main space and assuring that the content met the communities standards.

I began my progression from a WikiInfant to a Wikichild once I began to comply Wikipedia’s norms, rules, and regulations by addressing my first constructive criticism in my sandbox. At this age, according to the Seven Ages of Wikipedians, "Wikipedians are highly enthusiastic about editing, but still lack an in-depth knowledge of policy. It is important to remember this when dealing with them.” I continued to receive edits, from users such as User: EH9890, User:Sabbatessa, and User:MarinaMano. These edits addressed vagueness, general grammar, and deletion of over promotional wording. While I was familiarizing myself with how critical reviewers can be, I still struggled to fully understanding Wikipedia's acceptance process. Although I was feeling a it confused, I had not felt too much neglect from the community and was enthusiastic about editing my page to meet the perfect article standard.

Addressing the first few pieces of feedback within my sandbox was semi effortless. However, looking back it is important to note that these individuals, whom were also newcomers, treated me with respect and assumed good faith with my article. More than just editing my page, they also provided detailed feedback on ipsy (company) talk page, which later helped fix any prevailing issues I had when moving my sandbox over to my public space. My experience with fellow newcomers would later be greatly contrasted with feedback I received in my public space from admins and moderators.

Moving to Public Space
Once I deemed my page ready to be moved into a public space, I was feeling confident in my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines for a proper page. Soon after the excitement of publishing my page, it was proposed for deletion by three members who had reached out via my talk page. One user stated that my page was, "Thinly disguised advert for a cosmetics-supply start-up, padded with a bio of the founder. The sources are the subject's own site, business-directory listings, Youtube videos, a publisher's marketing page, another Wikipedia article, and an investor-advice column, as well an article on the company's marketing and profiles of the company founder." Another user on my talk page also notes that my page was, "so heavily advert-formatted" and asked me to visit Wikipedia's policies WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Paid. Finally, the perceived most established user that criticized my page, was a user by the name of Jimfbleak. This user accused me of not providing independent verifiable sources to enable the community to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines, being written in a promotional tone, and showing, "obvious conflict of interest." The user then informed me that "if you are paid directly or indirectly by the company you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation." Articles must be neutral and encyclopedic. Feeling irritated, picked on, and unwelcome at the time, I ignored such requests and reached out to User:Reagle to advise my next moves.

After reaching out to User:Reagle to assist with what I believed was unnecessary deletion, he also began to have conflict with other members. User:Reagle assisted by advising me to reach out via Jimfbleaks talk page and ask him why my article over promotional, and how it could be restored. Looking back on the criticism I received, I believe I should have appreciated the constructive criticism before getting upset. User Jimfbleak, whom at the time I thought was trolling me, provided ways to improve my article. He suggested that my previous edits showed, "Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: deluxe... personalized selection... tailored to the individual preferences... an extensive suite... Phan's mission... she gained recognition... a premium lifestyle network... popular... Phan has gained various awards and recognition—and so on." The user also stated that he was, "prepared to restore an edited version of the text to a sandbox, but before I do so, you must respond to the COI request."

After addressing the changes, as well as making minor edits to citations, I still had issues restoring my page. I had noticed that other users who had previously criticized my tone, sources, and reputation had chimed in on the argument. One user in particular had not only addressed my Wikipedia reputation and ignorance as a newcomer, but was malicious towards User:Reagle. On JimfBleak's talk page, the malicious user stated, "Someone who's supposed to be an expert on Wikipedia, who's teaching a class which involves writing live articles, who (I would think) is supposed to give advice on what is or isn't appropriate for an article, and who reviewed the content, let this through. User:Sperry21 should already have known the answer to their questions and the article shouldn't have had such problems to begin with."

Continuing the malicious activity, two users began to attack User:Reagle with "bad faith" behavior by stating, "This isn't the first time we've had ill-prepared students let loose on Wikipedia by tutors who don't know what they are doing themselves." Ultimately, one of the critics reached out to User:Reagle talk page and began ridiculing his work. Defending my article, and acknowledging that this was a learning activity, User:Reagle suggested that this user should have provided feedback as that was the, "non-jerky way to treat newcomers." Such issues were outlined in Joseph Reagle's article, "Be Nice: Wikipedia Norms for Supportive Communication" when he states that "Wikipedia is acknowledged to have been home to some bitter disputes which arise easily in the online context and sometimes escalate into flame wars that are counter productive and make Wikipedia a less pleasant project for everyone". The user who was malicious toward my professor and appeared to not assume "good faith", was not acting as a constructive moderator as he was targeting both of us to begin a conflict.

WikiTeen: Leaving Community
Feeling belittled as I watched users discuss my mishaps, I pushed my way into my "WikiTeen" phase. “When WikiTeens act out it is important to treat them fairly; WikiTeens who are punished too harshly may retaliate by running away.” Following the actions of a Wikiteen I pushed back on Wikipedia for a while and did not edit my page. There are many factors that may have contributed to the predisposed judgements by other members and ultimately affected my negative outlook on the community. According to the Seven Ages of Wikipedia ns, "Many WikiTeens take long WikiBreaks in an attempt to avoid lashing out. Some people blame the WikiTeen's anti-social behaviour on a lack of WikiLove or overexposure to advertising, but most believe this is a natural part of WikiDevelopment, helping the WikiTeen to decide what they want to do." As a result of my temportary unattraction to the community and lack of positive solcialization with other community members, I left the community for a bit of time, before decided to rejoin and try to build my recognition back.

WikiYoungAdult: Rejoining Community & Gratitude
Reverting back to the community norms that I was first presented when entering the community, I decided to take action and execute these community involvements. User:Reagle was able to ask our WikiEd, User:Adam (Wiki Ed) to restore my sandbox where I could once again edit my page without vandals, trolls, bad faith moderators, or disruptive criticism.

Though the resoration took some time, my page was finally placed back in my sandbox where I could privately. During this second attempt at illustrating my understanding of proper editing behaviors, I began to engage more with the community to assure that I was correctly following the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. I reached out to several users asking for advice including User JimfBleak's talk page, whom I had previous conflict with, and User:AmandaRR123 on her talk page. I was surprised with the willingness of community members to help me out. Rather than thinking they were treating me unfairly, it was a false accusation due to the fact that they had established themselves as dedicated community members. Once I started having formal interactions and asking, I felt more welcomed to the community. In fact, Jimfbleak, whom I thought had bad intentions as a community moderator, had offered my constructive advice via my talk page and even took the time to edit my work by deleting promotional tones, and fixing my references and headings. Similarly, another user proved to be a good moderator by editing my page and adding in categories, which I previously lacked. Because the users were providing me tips and suggestions, I began to appreciate the community more. To show this appreciation, I wanted to express my gratitude for their contributions after having dealt with a rather difficult initiation upon initially joining the community.

Gratitude and WikiLove
Gratitude is important in a society because it shows appreciation and thanks to another individual. In Grant and Gino's study, "expressions of gratitude doubled the likelihood that people would help someone a second time, increased the time spent helping (by 15%), and increased a person's rate of work (by 50%)." One example of expressing gratitude in Wikipedia is by sharing WikiLove and saying thanks. One example of this is when I awarded Jimfbleak with a Good Heart Barnstar for his contributions to my page. From my perspective, the use of wikilove would reconcile any differences I had previously felt with the old-timer, as well acknowledging my appreciation for his positive feedback.

WikiLove was important in this circumstance because it shows respect for the community to unite under the purpose to help, advise, protect, and get along with one another. As I had previously experienced, “editing Wikipedia has tended to become harder over time, and the likelihood that new users will receive correction/criticism has increased.” While I was originally unhappy with the treatment I received as a newcomer my first time around, I had now anticipated the criticism and feedback I would receive when moving my article out of the sandbox for the second time. Moreover, after better understanding the process through a learning perspective, my expectations were more realistic and I was better prepared to potentially undergo another harsh initiation process to the attempt to gain acceptance by the community.

Personal Reflection
Reflecting back to my previous feelings towards the community, before feeling discouraged the first time, I should have attempted to reach out for assistance rather briefly leaving the community. Having been looked down upon by old-timers made me feel the need to edit and contribute less. I went through weeks without even logging onto Wikipedia. Moreover, my emotions were well explained by the following statistic from the WikiMedia Foundation: “According to the 2011 survey of Wikipedia editors (see top-line data), among 17 variables, “being looked down on by more experienced editors” is the most likely to cause people to say they will edit less frequently (69% agreement).” On the other hand the statistic also states, “having others compliment you on your edits/articles” is the most likely to cause people to say they will edit more frequently (78% agreement)." Once I re-entered the community my second time, and began to interact with those who once criticized my work and acted against conduct, their intentions became a bit more clear as they were trying to moderate my writing ethics and govern the correct Wikipedia policies. When asking for advice, and actually following through with their suggested edits, my feelings about the community had changed. Furthermore, agreeing with the statistic, I felt more comfortable engaging with the platform and contributing to my article because I felt less of a newcomer, and more of a valued member.

Recommendations for Wikipedia
As mentioned in my previous section, "Newcomer Challenges," there are five problems when it comes to dealing with newcomers. While I already adressed my implications with recruitment and selection in my newcomer stage, and retention in my WikiTeen phase, I believe there is room for Wikipedia to improve on addressing issues with socialization and protection.

Socialization
Kraut and Resnick suggested that newcomers, "be socialized through friendly initial interactions with old-timers and that old-times be explicitly discouraged from being hostile to newcomers who make mistakes.” Though the circumstance may be unique to my own experience, i believe that I could have been socialized into the community in a more effective and welcoming manner. While Wikipedia offers many tutorials, rules, guidelines, and norms, "the group needs to socialize newcomers, teaching them how to behave in ways appropriate to the group." The main goal of a community is to keep a newcomer around during the socialization period. It is the "relationship between the newcomer and community during this early socialization phase that is especially fragile, and even small problems may drive newcomers out." This statement stood true to my own experience as I failed to recieve timely feedback from moderators before they immediately deleted my page. Many newcomers, as mentioned, also discredited my reputation and work and stated that I had "problems" as a community member. Had this issue been avoided, and I had been correctly socialized, my initiation process would have not stopped short before I dropped off of the community for a short period.

In the attempt to better socialize newcomers, I would suggest that Wikipedia has a process where they assign an experience group member or "old-timer" to mentor my work within Wikipedia. Such mentors would better assist the newcomer initiation process by examining newcomer's sandbox, addressing necessary changes, and approving the work before they move it is moved to the public space. This reccomendation can be supported by Kraut and Resnick'sr design Claim 23 which states, “when old timers provide newcomers formal mentorship, the new comers become more committed to the community, learn how to behave in it, and contribute more.”

Protection
As a newcomer, we face many challenges in society based upon the simple factor of not having enough experience or knowledge. It takes time to assimilate into a community and to feel comfortable with other members. With that said, "the community needs to protect itself from the potentially damaging actions of those who either have little knowledge of appropriate group behavior or little motivation to follow community norms" (180). While I attempted to follow the norms with my best ability as a newcomer, old timers and moderators failed to accept that “newcomers have not yet developed commitment to the group and have not yet learned how the group operates, it is rational for established group members to distrust them.” In my personal takeaway, moderators could have done a better job in pointing out specific feedback, as well as actively editing the page themselves. One way to assure this protection is by banning moderators to delete pages before the page creator is able to see constructive feedback. While this process could possibly be abused by trolls and manipulators who use "bad faith", it would further teach newcomers the appropriate etiquette and encourage them to engage with previous mistakes and contribute appropriate edits. As an effect, this would increase the retention rate by establishing a "learn as you go" model opposed to immediate rejection as a new member.

Conclusion
My experience with Wikipedia taught me a lot about the barriers that one faces being a newcomer to society. Prior to this activity, I had not faced such issues assimilating into other communities such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and Buzzfeed amongst many other social networks and online community platforms. While the process was infuriating and time consuming, it was the initiation process that increased my engagement and community productivity, as well as better teaching me the correct etiquette, communication, and norms through a trial and error process.

Seeing the progression of my final page start to finish, and the contributions that were made by other members taught me to not only appreciate the process of creating a page, but also to appreciate old timers as they want to help and work as a moderator. As a newcomer, I had not yet "developed the commitment to the group felt by old-timers." These old timers have maintained their retention to the community and more formally understand the correct way to communicate and contribute in the community. On the other hand, while some members had not assumed good faith when moderating my page, their malicious actions taught me a lot about the community and further affected how I would interact and commit myself to correcting my page to WIkipedia's standards.

To sum up my experience with Wikipedia, I refer to design claim 17 which states, “entry barriers for newcomers may cause those who join to be more committed to the group and contribute more” Had I not received such initiation through harsh criticism, feedback, edits, and interaction, I would have left the community once my task was done creating a page ultimately not learning anything about the community. The process as a whole challenged my previous misunderstanding of the community, while teaching me Wikipedia's policies of writing. Without the help of experienced editors and moderators throughout my lengthy and severe initiation process, it is safe to say my grasp of Wikipedia users and the community would be far less significant and appreciated. Moreover, even when moderators challenged my contributions, their actions motivated and pushed me to reach "perfect article" standards, all whilst bettering my understanding of the communities inner-workings as a whole.