User:Kimmecca/subpage

Despite using Wikipedia practically every day for research and general reading over the past decade, even I was ignorant to the community of creators behind every article. Not only are there 138,822 active users who contribute regularly, but there is an entire infrastructure of rules and norms which govern the actions of these users, providing support and opportunities for moderation to the expansive community. Despite its vastness and popularity, Wikipedia is not immune to struggle; one of the largest challenges facing Wikipedia is its reputation. There is a commonly held perception by people external to the inner workings of the platform that Wikipedia is unreliable and unregulated. Yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia, even if they do not have the best intentions, but there are thousands of users dedicated to the platform who work to keep "the free encyclopedia" as accurate as possible. In order to combat the negative perceptions and increase its chances of long-term prosperity, Wikipedia must learn how to effectively recruit and integrate newcomers into the community.

Recruiting newcomers is not easy; the opportunities for community on the Internet are limitless and fostering a sense of commitment between a new user and a platform is very challenging. Based on my experience with Wikipedia, I think the platform needs to adopt a more active approach to recruiting new members. As Kraut and Resnick (2011) suggest in their book Building Successful Online Communities, "active recruiting leads to the community having access to a larger pool of prospective members" (p. 183). Even though Wikipedia is one of the most popular websites, I doubt that many people would know how to get involved and start editing articles. Therefore, I would suggest that Wikipedia do the following in order to recruit more members. Firstly, I would include a banner at the top of Wikipedia (similar to when Wikipedia has their call for donations) that actively asks people to join and edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia could even try some A/B testing to try and make the most effective banner. Based on many Kraut and Resnick claims, I would suggest the banner emphasize the large community which already exists as well as present newcomers with strong reasons to join. Although impersonal advertising is not always the most effective, this banner would certainly be the most visible option for readers. Secondly, I would suggest for Wikipedia to rely on its own dedicated user-base to recruit more members. Kraut and Resnick (2011) also claim that "word-of-mouth recruiting is substantially more powerful than impersonal advertising" (p.184). Knowing that more personal types of advertising tend to be more effective in recruiting new members, Wikipedia should rely on its current members to bring in new people from their social networks and beyond.

The elements of my Wikipedia experience that I am most grateful for are the training videos I completed before starting this course and my Wikipedia article. The videos gave a comprehensive overview to the norms of the site as well as the values that many Wikipedians share and provided useful information on more technical aspects like how to begin editing an article. I think watching these training videos should be mandatory for everyone who signs up to edit Wikipedia. I would also recommend that Wikipedia include more information about the actual community present on the site in these videos, offering the viewer a "complete picture of what [their] experience will be once they join" (p. 199). Giving as comprehensive a picture as possible to newcomers, hopefully weeds out the undesirables and keeps people around who would be a good match for the site. Additionally, as seen in a study by Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills (1959), the more intense the newcomer initiation is, the more the newcomer will like the group. If Wikipedia were to adopt the strategy of making prospective members watch training videos before being able to edit articles, those who complete the training would likely be more committed to the site.

Although recruiting new people to a site can be challenging, it can be even more challenging keeping newcomers around. Externally, even if it seems that new platforms are popping up and luring many users away from the currently popular sites, work can be done internally to keep users loyal to a certain platform. On Wikipedia, for instance, providing newcomers with positive and social feedback is key to keeping newcomers motivated to continue editing (as noted in a recent study). Knowing this, Wikipedia could give explicit instructions to its users (especially the more experienced ones) to give this type of feedback to newcomers, increasing the likelihood that they will continue to edit and stay a member of the site.

One of the most surprising things I saw on Wikipedia was how much work was still needing to be done; for instance, on the Community Portal, there are more than 1,000 articles needing to be copy-edited and that is just a small sliver of the work needed to continue perfecting this encyclopedia. On the one hand, having this "help out" section is great and is organized in a manner which can lead people to specific tasks. However, in order to complete more of the work, I would implore Wikipedia to direct members to specific tasks. Perhaps Wikipedia could recommend articles that need editing to specific users based on that user's editing history; for example, Wikipedia could recommend a user to copy-edit an article about Nancy Drew seeing that this user had previously edited articles in the Nancy Drew universe. Why is being specific about task division so important? Kraut and Resnick (2011) claim that "asking specific people to make contributions increases the likelihood that they will do so" (p. 29). Wikipedia could make these requests themselves (styling them as a notification for the user) or they could have well-liked or respected users make the request; Kraut and Resnick (2011) also note that people are more likely to make a contribution if they are requested by someone of authority or someone they like.

I'm particularly passionate about Wikipedia improving their productivity and contribution levels because I found it quite difficult to find someone outside of this class to give me feedback on my article. Having the WikiProject pages was a helpful tool, but, again, nothing explicitly helpful came out of posting there. With that said, some people did end up editing my article, which was nice to see. Seeing other people contribute to my work really helped me feel like I was part of the community and that my work meant something to the community-at-large. Even though some of the changes were minor and not focused necessarily on content, it still was exciting to see my work evolve.

I think one of Wikipedia's biggest strengths is the use of rewards. Users can reward other users who make excellent contributions with barnstars; not only does the barnstar foster a sense of community, but it can actually motivate people to contribute more. As Kraut and Resnick (2011) note, rewards motivate contributions. Additionally, since these types of rewards are typically performance-contingent, it makes it less likely for users to game the system. I would suggest Wikipedia keep their reward system as is because, as Alfie Kohn notes in Punished by Rewards, rewards very easily can be used as punishment, which can diminish intrinsic motivation to contribute. In a community like Wikipedia, where its sustainability is reliant upon the motivation of users to contribute, keeping intrinsic motivation high is critical.

Wikipedia also does a decent job of regulating vandals; there is a comprehensive banning policy which offers a more formal solution to any problems of vandalism. On the more informal side, however, numerous Wikipedians are more than willing to remind other users of the rules that are in place, oftentimes directing them to certain pages that further explain a norm or rule. Additionally, Wikipedia has an Arbitration Committee (comprised of Wikipedia users) which moderates larger issues. This is effective because "moderation decided by people who are members of the community who are impartial...is more legitimate and thus is more effective" (Kraut & Resnick, 2011, p. 134). Wikipedia also has numerous reversion tools which can limit the damage caused by any trolls or vandals. If anything, I would suggest Wikipedia impose stricter punishments on repeat offenders. There is one user whose profile I spent some time examining and they had numerous comments on their talk page correcting their misbehavior; everyone was very kind to this user but, clearly, the words had little impact. A temporary ban or even some sort of fine might have limited the damage this user caused.

When I first began working on Wikipedia, I had no idea that such a complex world existed behind every article. The civil and helpful collaboration among members, the adherence to the rules and norms of the site, and the commitment to the cause of providing a free, accessible, accurate online encyclopedia are the features which have most greatly contributed to Wikipedia's success. While the site is by no means perfect, it is astonishing to me how well it does run considering how expansive it is and how simply anyone could join. Although Wikipedia could certainly improve on recruiting new members and integrating them into the community, there is a large group of people already here who strongly identify with the platform and its goals, creating a strong sense of commitment to the community. While I cannot say that I see myself becoming a regular contributor on Wikipedia, I do know that I will try to counteract the negative perception that Wikipedia has. Wikipedia is not an unreliable mosh of information posted by vandals; Wikipedia is a well-structured and dedicated community of people committed to providing the world with free and accurate information.