User:Nicohall/Reflection

For my Wikipedia contribution, I chose to expand an already existing article about “scraper bikes”, a special style of bike originating from Oakland, California. Rather than create a new article based on a local Boston topic I knew little about, I decided to research and expand my knowledge on a phenomenon which interested me because of its connection to my home. I also suspected I was somewhat unique amongst the Wikipedia community simply because of my awareness of scraper bikes as a local Bay Area practice and saw an opportunity to contribute to public knowledge of a little known cultural artifact. Although I was slightly unsure if the sources and information I found met the site’s criteria, I was assured that my contributions wouldn’t be harshly rebuked or lead to a hostile interaction. This is because I was given effective training on how to edit articles and what to expect from the community — pieces of knowledge which helped me overcome a newcomer’s nervousness. Unfortunately, aside from a minor grammatical edit, no Wikipedians responded to my contributions, so I am unable to analyze any significant direct interaction with the community. However, I think much can still be gained from examining my internal thought process as I approached and completed the project. I learned that possessing specific or niche knowledge encourages contribution, that newcomers can be better welcomed to a site like Wikipedia if they are coached somewhat, and that Wikipedia’s well established social norms help newcomers make edits confidently.

A significant part of my motivation for choosing scraper bikes as the topic and article to contribute to emerged from my sense of identity-based commitment to my hometown of Oakland, California. Scholars Kraut and Resnick define identity-based commitment as “a feeling of being part of the community and helping to fulfill its mission” (l. 1622). I feel particularly connected to Oakland as a community not only because of my upbringing there, but also because I feel it has a unique culture which is important to document and share. My connection to scraper bikes is similarly identity-based; I don’t know any bikers personally, but recognize the practice as an interesting element of a culture and a community which I am proud to count myself as part of. In this case, my sense of identity-based commitment to an “offline” community translated into a desire to fill an information gap on Wikipedia. Furthermore, because I view Oakland’s culture as relatively niche and obscure, I considered my knowledge and interest in it valuable to Wikipedia. This behavior is also described by Kraut and Resnick, who say, “if [people] think they are unique, they should be more motivated to contribute because their contributions are likely to influence the group” (l. 1269). This was certainly true in my case, because I considered myself one of a relatively small group with unique knowledge of a local cultural practice. In fact, I was surprised that an article on scraper bikes even existed, sparse as it was. The motivation that my insider knowledge generated is an untapped resource for Wikipedia. About the site specifically , Kraut and Resnick report: “5 percent of articles in Wikipedia have more that fifty different editors involved over a three-month period, and more than 50 percent of the articles have fewer than ten” (l. 1269). This lopsided distribution of content could perhaps be improved if Wikipedia actively sought out the unique knowledge naturally gathered throughout the lives of potential or existing members, especially if that knowledge is connected to a community that a given user has a strong connection to. Kraut and Resnick propose a something somewhat like this, saying, “one can increase people’s likelihood of editing . . . by pointing them to the articles few others have edited” (l. 1269). Perhaps Wikipedia could quiz new or current users about their knowledge of certain niche topics which need expansion, or put out calls in specialized online communities for edits to articles that community would be interested in. As it stands Wikipedia provides relatively little direction for new users, but encouraging them to share their niche knowledge could be an effective way to get them started editing the site.

My experience on Wikipedia as a newcomer was simple and unintimidating because I was educated in detail beforehand about how to use the site the, but also because it has promoted a positive community and implemented tools which help newcomers approach editing armed with the appropriate knowledge and attitude. The most significant factor in my comfort as a newcomer was the tutorials provided by WikiEdu and lessons in class. These tutorials straightforwardly taught me how to use the editing functionality. But more importantly, they taught me about specific elements of the Wikipedia community, such as its rather strict image use rules and its widely communicated spirit of good faith collaboration, which I would not know up front if I just began editing. This extensive tutorialization alleviated my fears of being confronted by other users in a “RTFM” style situation. RTFM, which Professor Reagle defines as “a comedic, though stern, form of social discipline”. He goes on to explain that RTFM as a social practice makes it so, “the obligation to know exists in tension with the expectation of asking questions”. Because I was thoroughly educated beforehand, I could proceed without too much fear of being sternly called out, and I could assuage the uncertainty newcomers often experience as a result of the tension Professor Reagle describes. I would encourage Wikipedia to implement some form of upfront, mandatory tutorialization beyond the small pop-ups they provide. A series of video tutorials or other lessons about the tools on the site, and the expectations of its community, could help many newcomers approach editing confidently. While requiring newcomers to go through education may cause some resistance, I imagine that users who genuinely want to contribute positively to the knowledge on Wikipedia would be willing to learn best practices first.

Wikipedia’s spirit of good faith collaboration also significantly improved my confidence as a newcomer. Wikipedia’s guidelines encourage users to assume the best of their peers, and knowing that the community was guided by this principle helped alleviate my apprehension about contributing to a public and official feeling platform. Regarding the principle of “assuming good faith”, Professor Reagle says, “From a psychological perspective . . . a cultural norm of assuming good faith can mitigate negative attributions”. Because I knew that Wikipedians are encouraged to assume good faith, I could confidently edit other user’s content and add content of my own even when I wasn’t 100% sure my contributions would be acceptable on the site. I was able to overcome my initial nervousness regarding making public changes to the page after I reminded myself that even if my contributions were found lacking, any Wikipedian I may interact with would treat them as an earnest attempt to improve the page. Although I did not get an opportunity to test this principle in a real interaction with a Wikipedian, the simple knowledge that it has been thoroughly instilled in the culture of the site helped give me confidence.

According to my experience, Wikipedia is well built in terms of its ability to attract new editors and make their editing experience smooth and stress free. The site certainly has room for improvement: it could increase engagement with underserved topics by targeting internet users with relevant niche knowledge, and it would benefit from integrating the onboarding provided by WikiEdu into all new users’ experiences. However, Wikipedia’s well established norms of conduct give newcomers a solid foundation on which to build their engagement, because they help reassure newcomers that their contributions will be treated fairly.