User:Steph.tsaii/Report

My experience as a new Wikipedia contributor has helped me learn more about how successful online communities maintain their norms and thrive. The WikiEd modules have guided me through the little steps I have to make before making my article go live. It has taught me many lessons that I would not have paid attention to in the past, such as uploading images, utilizing the talk page, and evaluating an article’s class and its importance. During a month of learning, I was able to add a significant amount of information to the article ‘National Kaohsiung Center for the Arts’ by improving its content and correcting some grammatical errors. During the process, I learned the importance of providing content neutrality and generating reliable sources to appeal to the community that my work is done with good faith. Following the community norms and guidelines reminded me of the amount of work contributors have to do behind the scenes to ensure the site produces quality content and high-standard information. Additionally, I also found that the talk page was extremely helpful for users to connect and gain knowledge of what needs to be improved. While recognizing the strengths and uniqueness Wikipedia has, I would like to identify some potential suggestions to improve commitment and engagement in Wikipedia.

One aspect that Wikipedia could improve on is the way they get users to commit to the community. While there are millions of people viewing Wikipedia every day, there is only a small portion of users who are actively contributing to its content. Additionally, many users will only feel the need to edit articles that they are passionate about. As a newcomer myself, I felt like an outsider when I started using Wikipedia as it felt more like doing something for academic studies rather than being a part of a community that is interesting and engaging. A way to tackle this problem is to increase the bonds-based commitment to attract newcomers and build deeper connections. Although Wikipedia has allowed users to display their signatures and included a talk page for every article for users to engage, I believe that it is simply not enough. According to Kraut and Resnick, the ability to see “pictures of other people or even their avatars increases attraction" (p. 90). However, allowing users to upload a picture of themselves may be too complicated as it may involve image and identity verification. Therefore, Wikipedia should have designers create avatars that users can choose from to create a persistent identity and enhance the “familiar effect” (p. 90). Another approach to this problem is either redesigning the talk page layout or creating another page for users to communicate with one another actively. Currently, the talk page prohibits users to “discuss personal topics and promote relationships with other Wikipedians (Kraut & Resnick, 2012, p. 211). However, having a space for users to simply bond and connect would increase users’ commitment to the community when they feel like their thoughts are being heard and understood.

Another suggestion I would like to give is the way Wikipedia introduces its norms and guidelines. While Wikipedia has many pages that explain to users how to start contributing to articles, one question that Wikipedians should ask is “why would they even go to that page in the first place?” Without going through the WikiEd modules, I would be completely confused about what the community wants and likes. The absence of clear norms may lead to ineffectiveness in contribution and cause conflict between community members. If a newcomer made an edit with good faith but did not hold a neutral point of view, a mature member would likely delete the information, discouraging the new user from ever contributing again. Socialization is an approach that Wikipedia could do to teach newcomers “how to behave in ways appropriate to a group”. By requiring new users to go through the WikiEd program, they would not only gain information on how to navigate in Wikipedia but also increase their commitment to the site because they have already gone through training. This can also filter out spammers and trolls when there is a higher standard to enter as a contributor.

The last suggestion I would like to make is the lack of motivation for existing users to actively engage in the community. As mentioned above, many users would only contribute to topics they are passionate about. This is also a problem that I would struggle with if I wasn’t required to contribute for class. Although Wikipedia has provided Barnstars as a way to give status to members as a recognition for their hard work, this way of encouraging users raises credibility problems because it is only “based on the judgment of only a single editor” (p. 49). However, I do agree that the competition increases performance levels. Therefore, instead of having Barnstars, Wikipedia should develop a “level-up” system based on performance feedback where users can earn points by submitting pictures, referring to newcomers, or performing actions that Wikipedia values. By having scores or levels for members, users will be “naturally drawn to compare their own scores” (pg. 49), which would directly motivate them to become active contributors.

As a newcomer sharing my experiences in Wikipedia for the past month, the things mentioned above are some of my observations and suggestions I would like to give back to the community as a return for teaching me many valuable skills in becoming an effective writer and contributor. Please don’t hesitate to leave a message on the talk page if you have any questions or thoughts about my opinions. I would love to discuss more about it!

Word Count: 937