User:TayG1201/Report

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where a community of readers/editors comes together to make the site successful. Wikipedia is useful for readers to find information on any given topic, by looking it up in the search. The goal of these articles is to provide information that is cited from reliable sources for each piece of individual material, with unbiased content. Wikipedia editors are the backbone of the community as they create, revise, and build upon the contributions from previous editors. As a student who has learned and contributed to wikipedia from my Online Communities: 481 course and reviewed cases of other types of online communities, I took note on how Wikipedia can improve in terms of recruiting members, maintaining commitment to stay, and community norms so the community continues to succeed.

In my course, I received extensive training on the process of Wikipedia as a student editor with my fellow peers. When I signed up to join Wikipedia, I was part of a WikiEdu group with my classmates where I received training on the goals of Wikipedia, as well as step-by-step tutorials on how to do everything from finding references, editing a sandbox, and contributing to other Wikipedia articles/talk pages. I know that without this training, as a newcomer I would’ve been extremely lost. My impression of Wikipedia as someone who has read articles on the site, was that it was “unreliable” because there are multiple sources, and no real authors. My previous teachers up until college discouraged me from using Wikipedia because it was not considered scholarly. I avoided Wikipedia because of these preconceived ideas that it was bad. Wikipedia needs to re-establish their reputation. In order to be taken seriously by institutions like schools, I feel like it should implement a rating scale to prove that the information in the article was peer-reviewed by other contributors. This may help with establishing legitimacy, proving its goal as an educational and unbiased source that people can trust.

Newcomers may be a threat to online communities because they are clueless and informed, thus leading to contributions that may not align with the communities norms and goals. Design claim 22 states “by using formal, sequential, and collective socialization tactics, new members are likely to become more committed to the community, learn how to behave in it, and contribute more”. If Wikipedia took newcomers by socializing them in a separate group and requiring them to participate in a similar training module, I believe that it would not only prevent the threat of disturbing the community, but also attract the right kind of people to Wikipedia. By requiring the training, there is a slight possibility that newcomers may skip through it, but since it takes a little bit more time, those who are motivated to make quality contributions will remain. As of now, the majority of Wikipedia members are intrinsically motivated, meaning that their interest to participate comes from inside, because it may be enjoyable to contribute to the greater good. I believe the training would build upon this intrinsic motivation, as users have a greater understanding of Wikipedia’s goals, and take it seriously because they care about the work they are doing, knowing what contributions are valuable.

Wikipedia editors are based on normative based commitment, which is the feeling of obligation to a community. Wikipedia readers are needs-based. As an open source to the public, the audience it attracts as readers are those who are looking for specific information on a subject. The people who edit and create Wikipedia are those who are passionate about writing or want to provide useful information to others that enjoy the same topic. When contributing to an article, I picked a subject I was interested in- Meal kits. The page was start-class, and I knew there was more information to be provided. I found my work to be rewarding after spending so much time improving the article. However, I will say that I did not find enough commitment to stay afterwards. I will not contribute to editing another article on Wikipedia, because the benefits don't outweigh the cost (time I spent) writing the article. In order to improve critical mass, Wikipedia needs to understand why users contribute and design systems to provide these things. For example, Wikipedia ranks articles by order of importance so users know how they can contribute to benefit the most people. Wikipedia needs to stress this needs-based commitment more for the majority of people who rely on it for information. I suggest the idea of “lock-in”, in which participation leads to value that cannot be transferred outside of the community. To encourage needs-based commitment for editors, I believe it would be beneficial to provide a reward scale/status on Wikipedia for making a certain amount of contributions to an article. The more high quality edits, the higher status ranking and privileges. I think that higher level contributors should be granted a special status made available for all Wikipedians to see- which will also encourage competition and a level of value that only exists on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is unique because it is a community that takes pride in professional, high quality work, but allows for users to be anonymous. It is worth it for contributors to remain anonymous because of their safety risks- like potentially losing a job from contributing to specific topics, and to feel less pressure editing if a mistake is made. This norm of anonymity is effective in the Wikipedia community- but I feel like the tradeoff is that it limits users from building connections. I suggest the ability for users to create chat groups, aside talk pages for specific article categories. This way, anonymity remains, but the ability to build closer relationships, aside from just editing on Wikipedia is available. As a result, according to design claim 28,  increasing benefits will encourage participation for the long-term. Enhancing user retention through different ways to engage on the site will ensure that the community continues to thrive.