User:Ssylviaiii/Win20 COM482 Wiki Report

My experience of contributing to Wikipedia is small. Before taking this course, I used Wikipedia to find some information for general knowledge or education. This course gave me a chance to make my first contribution to Wikipedia. Before starting this project, I had to learn more about the rules, norms, and processes of Wikipedia. Having learned it, I have chosen a stub article “Kungfu (restaurant)” and had to publish it in the encyclopedia. I knew that Wikipedia was free for all to edit, but I have never thought about editing before. Here, I will tell you about my experience of contributing to Wikipedia and offer a piece of actionable and detailed advice to the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation that can help to improve their community. Although Wikipedia introduces itself as a community free for all to edit, its interface is not that friendly to the newcomers, it does not offer external awards, and its administrators and editors are not always supportive and fair to the newcomers.

While doing the project, I noticed that Wikipedia was not as friendly to such newcomers as me as it first seemed to be. I spent a lot of time learning what every option, like a sandbox or a talk page, meant. The main thing I liked was the process of registration. It did not require any personal data or identity proof, which made this process quick and easy. Still, I would offer the Wikipedia community to create a more user-friendly interface to attract new contributors and readers. Even though Wikipedia has a help page, where newbies can find answers to most of their questions, there is a surplus of information. New users do not know where to start and what to do first. Thus, they begin clicking on every link and reading everything step by step. However, it takes too much time and pushes possible contributors away from this community. If the interface were easier and contained only the most important data, the newcomers would feel more confident and willing to start contributing to the Wikipedia community. I think that it would be great to create short video instructions that would introduce new users to the rules and processes of Wikipedia. Such videos could be posted on the YouTube channel or Facebook page of the Wikipedia community, and every potential contributor could watch them before registering there and starting their contribution. Even though the Wikimedia Foundation has several training videos on its YouTube channel, these videos are too short and difficult to find on the Wikipedia community website. I would advise that the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation simplify their interface and add links to video instructions so that the newcomers could better and faster understand the process of contribution to the community.

Besides, the main reason why I did not contribute to Wikipedia earlier was the absence of material benefit. I thought that if it did not benefit me materially, it would be just a waste of my time. Even though I noticed that some of the information in Wikipedia was incomplete, or that the content of the same article was different in different languages, I did not think about editing. The main reason was the lack of motivation. Wikipedia rewards its contributors with barnstars or other awards, but this system of awards is unpredictable. According to Kraut and Resnick, “Nontransparent eligibility criteria and unpredictable reward schedules lead to less gaming of the system than do predictable rewards” (58). Although Wikipedia is a non-profitable community and does not pay its contributors for writing and editing, it could have made the reward system more transparent and motivating. In their design claims 23-24, Kraut and Resnick argue that the best way to get contributions is to offer rewards – “whether in the form of status, privileges, or material contributions” (53). I think that some special awards for the newcomers would increase their desire to contribute to the Wikipedia community in the future. For example, when a newcomer edits the first three articles, they receive a reward. When they gather, for instance, five or ten rewards, they receive an improvement in their status. The higher the status is, the more possibilities a user has in the Wikipedia community. Such a system of rewards aims to attract the newbies to the contribution process by promising them personal growth within the community. The processing theory can also be applied here. According to this theory, “the more people care about the decision domain, the more they will be willing to go through an informal cost-benefit analysis when making a decision” (Kraut and Resnick 30). This process is similar to gaming. When people play video games, they are not paid for it, but they are interested in gathering stars, scores, or other rewards that help them move up to higher levels. If Wikipedia offered such higher levels to its contributors, their participation in editing and publishing would increase.

Although the system of awards is important, the support of administrators and editors is crucial for the newcomers. From my experience, I noticed that administrators and editors have higher authority in the Wikipedia community and they decide whether to delete or keep what other users have edited. I cannot understand how Wikipedia ensures that these people are fair, impartial and neutral. I think that Wikipedia needs to be more transparent and fair about it. For instance, if a person wants to become an administrator, they should certify their education and proficiency in the field for which they want to be responsible. Today, as I know, those who are active members of Wikipedia for about two-three years and made about 4000 edits to build the encyclopedia can nominate themselves as administrators (“How to Become a Wikipedia Administrator”). If the process of gaining an adminship were more complicated and required proof of proficiency, the administrators would be more fair and impartial. Besides, I would also advise the administrators of Wikipedia to be more supportive of the newcomers and to help them instead of deleting their editing at once. If newbie registers in the Wikipedia community and their first editing is deleted without any explanation, they will not want to continue their contribution in the future. However, if the administrators and editors assisted the newcomers, advised them how to start editing and what to edit first, and pointed out to their mistakes instead of deleting them, the newbies would be more willing to continue their editing process. Thus, I would advise the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation to assign an experienced editor to every registered newcomer to increase extrinsic motivation and feel safer and more confident within the community. Consequently, the number of contributors will increase, and Wikipedia will expand.

In conclusion, Wikipedia is a unique encyclopedia that allows every person becoming its contributor, and this is its main advantage. However, the Wikipedia community has some flows, which need to be addressed. The interface should be user-friendly and simple because the simpler it is, the more willing the users will be to read it and register there. The system of awards for registered users should also be more predictable and motivating. Finally, the administrators and editors should be more supportive of the newcomers and fair when editing or deleting other users’ changes. If the Wikipedia community and Wikimedia Foundation think about such changes, they will have more contributors and satisfied users in the future.

Works Cited

“How to Become a Wikipedia Administrator.” WikiHow, 24 Nov. 2019, www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Wikipedia-Administrator

Kraut, Robert E., and Paul Resnick. Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. The MIT Press, 2012.