User:Fortier.je/subpage

Wikipedia Reflection

Introduction

Eighteen billion pages on Wikipedia are viewed every single day (Smith, 2018). Wikipedia's page views outnumber the number of people in the world - seven billion people (Google). With these statistics in mind, it is fair to say that Wikipedia is an extremely influential online community that is a top source of information for people across the globe. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I analyze Wikipedia's welcoming of newcomers, persuasion to contribute, motivational power, and regulation practices. As a newcomer, I felt welcomed with clear recruiting materials and friendly Wikipedians, safe with a sandbox, and respectful for legitimate citation practices even when annoyed by strict regulation.

Welcoming of Newcomers

Wikipedia provides all users with very explicit rules and guidelines. Kraut and Resnick (2013) claim that this clear display of expected behavior increases the ability for community members to know the norms, especially when it is less clear what others think is acceptable. For additional clarity and instruction, booklets and videos are available to help ease newcomers into Wikipedian practices. According to Kraut and Resnick (2013), recruiting materials that present reasons to join and endorsements by credible sources and sites attract people who are actively searching for and evaluating communities. The credible booklets, videos, and quizzes provided to students using Wikipedia increase the students' ability to understand the importance of Wikipedia contributions and appreciate the value of free information. Kraut and Resnick (2013) claim that these explicit recruiting materials provide potential new members with an accurate and complete picture of what their experience will be once they join and will increase their readiness to contribute. The scholars also claim that sandboxes both speed up the learning process for newcomers and reduce the harm to the community they might otherwise cause. Wikipedia provides each user with a sandbox and encourages new users to practice in their sandbox first before making contributions. Kraut and Resnick (2013) also explain that sandboxes help reduce potential harm to the community caused by inexperienced newcomers.

Persuading People to Contribute and Donate

According to Kraut and Resnick (2013), making the list of needed contributions easily visible increases the likelihood that the community will provide these contributions. Wikipedia makes an explicit and organized list of articles in need of user contribution. This list includes articles that do not yet exist as well as existing articles that need additional writing. While this list sets users up for clear communication once on the list's page, it is difficult to find this page. Newcomers may have difficulty navigating to this page, so a welcome message from Wikipedia with this link would be helpful to push users in the right direction for a start at their first article. According to Kraut and Resnick (2013), as well as Cialdini (2003), people of high status or similarity hold persuasive power. With that said, this welcome message would be especially powerful if the message came from the Wikipedia founder or a Wikipedian with similar interests.

While Wikipedia did not ask me directly to complete a task, this general public listing of needed contributions organizes tasks into categories. These categories are based on the article's area of interest (i.e.: science, art, music, technology). This organized design choice allows users to seek out an article that interests them. According to Kraut and Resnick (2013), asking people to perform tasks that interest them and that they are able to perform will increase contributions rather than asking people at random. Wikipedia could improve on their user experience by setting up each user with a survey of interests. A user could simply check off boxes of categories that may interest them. Wikipedia could then use this list to then send people specially selected tasks that may be of interest to them.

Motivation

According to Kraut and Resnick (2013), goals have larger effects when people receive frequent feedback about their performance with respect to the goals. Each user has a different experience in regards to feedback. This is because editors vary on each article and editing does not have a specific timeline. Some editors may be more strict and other may be more lenient. As for editing timelines, one contributor may submit an article for review and receive edits back the next day, while a different contributor may receive feedback in a few weeks. This difference in review experience can decrease motivation for contributors that are not receiving swift feedback.

Wikipedia encourages a friendly and helpful atmosphere. Kraut and Resnick (2013) claim that performance feedback, especially positive feedback, can enhance motivation to perform tasks. The norm among experienced Wikipedians is to welcome newcomers by submitting encouraging edits on newcomer contributions. Experienced Wikipedians can then serve as a guide to newcomers and point them in positive directions like The Tea House. According to Kraut and Resnick (2013), newcomers that friendly interactions with existing community members soon after joining a community will be more likely to stay and contribute more. This mentor-like environment encourages newcomers to follow through with their contributions.

Moderation, Community Governance, and Regulation

Wikipedia is a community policed by its members. According to Kraut and Resnick (2013), Community influence on rulemaking will increase compliance with the rules. This public policing provides a moderation system that allows the community's users to pre-screen, degrade, label, move, or remove inappropriate messages and limit damage as they see it. Wikipedians are informed of moderation criteria and fellow Wikipedians police to make sure that this is being consistently applied. Contributors have a chance to argue one's case and appeal. Kraut and Resnick claim that these practices increase the legitimacy and thus the effectiveness of moderation decisions.

Reflection of Newcomer Experience

My experience utilizing Wikipedia recruiting material was extremely positive because community rules and guidelines for future article contributions were clear. Once I created my Wikipedia account, I found my sandbox very helpful to practice formatting and draft my future contributions. The sandbox felt like a safe space for me to gain comfort and confidence before making a real mark in the community. Professor Reagle directed our class to a clear list of needed article contributions with a direct link to the webpage on Wikipedia. I found the list's organization beneficial in helping me decide which article to select. Since I hold an interest in art, I scanned the art category for articles that sparked my interest. According to Kraut and Resnick (2013), I would be more prone to contribute if the topic appealed to me. After selecting the Neo-geo art movement, I began the draft of my article in my sandbox after gathering resources through Snell Library and their online database. I found a wonderful book consisting of images of Neo-geo art, but was disappointed to learn that I could not post these images in my article due to the fact that I did not own the rights to the images. I was annoyed because images would enhance a reader's understanding of a visual movement.

Moving on from that set-back, I found other sources including New York Times newspaper articles reporting on the beginning of the movement. With many articles and books serving as my sources, I submitted my draft for review. However, it was declined due to source formatting issues. I quickly fixed my formatting issues and submitted, but then was declined by a second editor who believed that I did not have enough resources to support my article. The editor pointed me to Google Books and encouraged me to keep on trying. After finding a source via Google Books, I added a section to my article and resubmitted. My article is currently still under review. My personal experience as a newcomer has been frustrating due to lengthy wait times for review. As a student contributor, I have felt nervous about getting my contribution accepted in time for an in-class due date. A specific review timeline (i.e.: article edits are returned within 5 days) would have been helpful in assuring timely completion. However, this was out of my control.

As a newcomer, I was hesitant to appeal to my editor's review of my Neo-geo article. My hesitance may lie in my desire to be a respectful newbie. While I felt that my sources were sufficient, I listened to my editor and added another source. Recruiting materials caused me to understand the need for sufficient sourcing. In a world of fake news, it is important that the information Wikipedia produced is legitimate and unbiased. While I find Wikipedia's regulation of sourcing extremely strict, I also respect it.

Conclusion

My overall experience as a newcomer was positive in terms of friendly and encouraging interaction, but frustrating in terms of editorial timelines. Wikipedia could improve on their user's experience by assigning editors with a timeline for review returns. As a graphic designer, I am also turned-off by Wikipedia's overall aesthetic and navigation. It is not a user-friendly or attractive platform. I often found it difficult know which buttons to press and where to find instructional information that I desired. If I did not receive the recruiting materials from my professor, I would have been even more lost than I already was. A solution to this would be for Wikipedia to send all newcomers a message with a welcome packet of sorts. This welcome packet could include instructional videos and helpful links that may not be easy to find as a newcomer. While I did experience frustration, I maintained a strong respect for free, neutral, and credible information.