User:UWomar/Report

Wikipedia is an interesting platform with many opportunities to contribute. If it wouldn’t have been for this class though, I would not have considered it a community platform. Seeing it from a lens where we are contributors and not only consumers exposed distinct motivations and commitments. Using the lessons on Wiki Edu and following along on the step-by-step page examples were very useful in being able to make the proper contributions. From my experience with Wikipedia and the relationship I will have with it after, has given me the ability to analyze and assess ways to make Wikipedia even better. For there to be more contributors and still maintain a high level of information we would need to change the way people get access to become editors on Wikipedia.

I know that by being assigned weekly tasks to accomplish gave me a solid structure on what and when to do something. However, if I didn’t have the extrinsic motivation to not receive a low grade I wouldn’t have become a Wiki editor. My sole contribution to Wikipedia was because it was a requirement, but I will say I experienced some bonds-based commitments once we were broken up into groups. This happened because I was able to learn about a particular person’s article and due to that reason, I chose to peer review their article. When it came to interacting in the “talk” pages I also interacted with a person I knew from class, I didn’t just pick a random username from the students list. If one is building out an online platform and is searching for a community aspect the best option for that is outlining the guidelines and having a specific purpose statement. I think Wikipedia does a good job of this but could do better at not letting anyone become an editor.

Let’s say the new changes I suggest go in effect today, meaning that Wikipedia already has its reputation and already has millions of articles published. I would make changes that the pioneer or veteran users didn’t have when the site first launched, for example I would make it completely anonymous like the website youbemom.com. If we had a page with only information that we found relevant, but didn’t have a username attached would enable us to have a cohesive encyclopedia. No one would be trying to “be the one” or to be “right.” I would also only let registered classes or programs that were involved with that genre of article, the ability to edit and make changes. It might make the growth of the community slower, but it would push the users to be more interactive in person with the people that are in that class. Not to mention the people involved on articles will actually be interested in that topic, since they are studying in that specific field.

Another change would be that if the individual wasn’t a part of this class or program, they could only get access to the site “editing” feature if they paid a one-time fee. By doing this there wouldn’t be as many trolls because they wouldn’t want money to come out of their pocket just to make an irrelevant comment. Once the person was in, there would have to be a minimum number of article reviews and edits that one must submit before being able to go in and make a live edit. It would be like a benchmark that would have to be met, before getting that access. This in turn would also give the user more hands-on experience by seeing multiple articles and how they are constructed. While their initial edits are under review they wouldn't be "live," someone with that status would have to approve the content/edit before approving it to go live.

My experience with this community was more overwhelming than anything. Not because I was bullied or harassed, I got some help on my article (not sure if it was bots or other users), but because I felt like I didn’t know where to begin. The article I chose, had some decent information on it and from the data I was collecting it felt as though they had hit most of the objective points, so I didn’t know how much or what kind of information to add without being subjective myself. I was able to add some content, rearrange the structure and add some pictures which I think made the article more appealing to the readers. I don’t see myself coming back to Wikipedia and making any more edits once I have completed this course, but will definitely come back for information to learn. We'll see, I'm becoming. teacher next year and might be interested in contributing things I learn throughout my life, so I won't delete my username just yet.

A positive thing I did learn about Wikipedia is that it is a reliable source and erased a myth I had about it.