User talk:Micheletti.t

Welcome!
Throughout this semester, I successfully navigated my way through the many stages of joining the online community Wikipedia. Keeping our readings in mind as I upgraded from newcomer to contributor, I considered ways that the community could not only draw in more users, but retain them for a longer period of time. I’m going to walk you through the process that I have designed which could prove more effective than Wikipedia’s existing methods. Such a redesign would be immediately noticeable as a newcomer joins the world’s largest encyclopedia. Newcomers are especially tricky for a number of reasons. First of all, unless a community is taking members directly from a preexisting community, each newcomer represents a different identity that may or not match up well with Wikipedia’s. This means those running the community aren’t able to advertise themselves in a way to pull every available user. The community must be designed to draw in as many people as possible, and appeal to as many demographics as possible so long as it remains true to their community’s identity. Through this, they select a specific type of user that they would most likely retain. Now take a well-established community such as Wikipedia, which bonds around the idea of free unlimited access of information. One can notice an air of efficiency, in both article writing and communication, resulting in a displeasure for any user that hinders the process. This means that newcomers must have already familiarized themselves with the basics of contributing on Wikipedia. Understanding how to edit and write articles is crucial; requests for edits can be somewhat blunt so a newcomer could be easily startled away. After all, they’re already adapting to all sorts of new slang and vernacular introduced to them by the “Wikipedians”. Barnstars and RTFM, words and phrases that the user has never previously encountered need to be introduced in the beginning, easing whatever culture shock the newcomers are already feeling. Those that have been retained then familiarize themselves with the culture of the group. Incentivizing experienced users to socialize and protect newcomers could come with the promise of increased status. This might require that newbies have some sort of indication if their account has been made in the last week. One could say this could result in animosity directed specifically at newcomers, and I would agree. But while some may think this is a bad thing, Arson and Mills conducted an experiment at Stanford University that suggests extreme initiations result in a higher commitment rate. Same reason fraternities are notoriously cruel towards their pledges; cognitive dissonance convinces your subconscious mind that if you are suffering to join this group, the group must be worth suffering for. Experience-related snobbery could create generate even more motivation for the newcomers to commit to the community. They will seek acceptance from both their mentors and tormentors, causing them adapt to the norms while they continue to contribute. Now that the newcomers have begun to align with the identity of the masses, it is important to motivate them to continue to contribute. Ideally, the identity-based commitment would be the primary source of enthusiasm amongst its users. Many of Wikipedia’s users, however do not continue to contribute as only around 130,000 of their almost 30 million registered users are still active. Incentivizing contribution for a community with such a broad identity could pose a problem. “The spread of information” may not be specific enough of a cause to motivate any users. With this in mind, it might be a good idea to gather some personal information about the user as they first register. A brief survey regarding likes and dislikes could provide enough information to guide the user towards whichever section of Wikipedia best suits them. Say a huge baseball fan joins, and puts that down as an interest. That user could then be notified when contributions are made pertaining to that subject, allowing her or him to view, edit or expand upon the information. It is important that these niche communities are developed on their own, as Kraut and Resnick assert that “ambiguity of scope for the community creates opportunities for adjustment and member ownership”. These “microcommunities” can then “subdivide themselves after becoming active, which creates more net benefits for participants than having lots of inactive spaces. As these communities are flesh themselves out, Wikipedia could then create talk pages for the more substantial ones, which would provide a common ground for members to discuss articles or topics that need more articles. This adds an extra layer of commitment as users will form connections with individual users and motivates them to continue to contribute to their area of expertise. As these microcommunities grow, either Wikipedia or the microcommunities themselves can appoint administrators or moderators much like reddit does. These admins can create statuses within the microcommunity to add extra incentive for contributions. Additionally, as users begin to personalize the information that she or he handles, Wikipedia then has enough information to specialize their contribution requests. According to Kraut and Resnick’s design claim regarding motivation, “asking specific people to make contributions increases their likelihood that they will do so”. Wikipedia can send users notifications when others request articles be written on an interest of theirs. Being formally presented with an opportunity for contribution would not only incentivize the user but it could also result in further commitment to the group via cognitive dissonance. The Ben Franklin effect is described by Jecker and Landy as “a psychological phenomenon in which a person who has performed a favor for someone is likely to do another favor than they would have if they had received a favor from that person”. Wikipedia could also further incentivize by offering improved status for those who make a substantial amount of “suggested contributions”. As I write this I’m being distracted by my phone, going off about it being someone’s birthday on Facebook or another big injury to my favorite sports team. This is what Wikipedia is lacking: a push method of retaining active users. It already draws people in with its abundance of information, but now it needs to actively remind users that it’s time to contribute. As Wikipedia becomes more social for its active users, the community needs to gear its mobile application to send them alerts. Whether the push notifications are for an edit made to a user’s article, a reply on a user page or even a post to the microcommunity’s talk page, as long as she or he is being reminded that Wikipedia exists, then it’s working. This would require that the app’s interface be redesigned to fit such needs, with quick links to the user’s most visited talk pages as well as an easily navigable archive of her or his previous contributions. Now that users are being properly motivated to commit and contribute to Wikipedia, it’s time to deal with the toxic users that slipped through the cracks. Trolls, vandals, whatever you want to call them, often hinder communication and the spread of false information, which happens to align perfectly with Wikipedia’s entire platform. Through my experience in the community, however I did not notice very much vandalism. I find their system of topic and interaction bans to be very effective and often provides a suitable punishment for whatever offense is discussed. Shadow banning is a very effective tool that could prove more useful in a more socialized Wikipedia. As certain topics’ talk pages get more traffic, there is likely to be a troll obstructing day to day operations. More often than not, this serves to get a reaction out of other users, so creating huge fuss over them would only serve to feed the troll. A temporary shadow ban would instead make this user’s contributions invisible to other users and prevent any hindering of communication. Users would notify the topic’s administrator or moderator, who would review the issue and issue a punishment. If it were a repeated offense, then the board would be altered and the traditional method could still be used. Overall, if Wikipedia is truly committed to increasing their number of active and committed users, it is going to take some restructuring. The founders and existing users may not even want to create a community reliant on social interaction. In my opinion, however the spread of information is already a very personal interaction. While users might help one another without communicating whatsoever, they are connected for a brief need or desire for the same information. In fact, one could argue that making this process more social would further expedite it, gearing the workload towards more specific common goals.

Micheletti.t (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)