User:Byjaredbrown/Report

Despite efforts by Wikipedia to produce a low-barrier contribution experience, the process of becoming a committed user, or Wikipedian, is rife with challenges for individuals who share the values of the organization but require increased socialization to discover contribution opportunities, understand how to interact with other users, and develop a group identity. Further accommodating these novice users has the potential to disrupt the routines of established community members, however, it also presents an opportunity to retain a more diverse set of contributors with various topical interests in the long term. Additionally, Wikipedia suffers from a reputation pushed by the U.S. K-12 public education system of inaccuracies and vandalism. Leadership should consider strategies for promoting Wikipedia as an academic tool and information repository that is useful for finding credible sources for research. Additionally, there are opportunities for Wikipedia to more prominently prompt uninitiated website visitors to add information to or correct errors in articles they view.

Before enrolling in the Building Successful Online Communities WikiEdu course, my perception of Wikipedia was largely formed by years of messaging from public school teachers that the site was unreliable and should be avoided as a reputable source of information. The citations listed in articles were never referenced as potential resources for research, either. And though the ability for anyone on the internet to edit articles was the implied reason for Wikipedia’s supposed lack of credibility, it never occurred to me to contribute myself because I was so heavily discouraged from visiting the site. Since completing my secondary education, I have frequently visited Wikipedia for basic information on a variety of topics but the bias engrained in me from kindergarten persisted. The rise of social media also made humorous vandalism on Wikipedia fodder for viral internet memes, which reinforced an untrustworthy, unsophisticated reputation. And because so much of Wikipedia’s native marketing focuses on donations, I lacked both motivation and awareness of the ability to contribute.

The Building Successful Online Communities course was an excellent opportunity that I otherwise would not have had to learn about contributing to Wikipedia. The tutorials about proper contributions and using the editing interface were clear and not excessive in terms of length or detail. Additionally, the exercises for evaluating other students’ work were especially helpful for reinforcing my prior learning while also contributing to my ability to identify flaws in articles that require attention. However, I am still unsure about my long-term commitment to continue contributing beyond the requirements of the course. This is especially interesting because I consider myself a prime candidate for becoming a committed Wikipedian based on the current user base: I’m a male in my mid-20s, I am familiar with markup languages, I have a passion for public information as a professional journalist, and I see many topics of personal interest on Wikipedia that are in need of contribution.  But, even after taking the initiative to join a WikiProject, I have found it difficult to find a community and garner feedback on a stub article I significantly expanded. I listed the article for reassessment on the appropriate WikiProject with no success. And because I never required technical assistance with drafting my article, I never considered asking a question in the Wikipedia Teahouse as a means for socialization.

Whereas some of my classmates indicated struggling to navigate the Wikipedia interface itself, this was not as much of a barrier to contribution for me. Rather, due to the lack of feedback and interaction with like-minded editors, I have not developed affective or normative commitment to Wikipedia nor a WikiProject, putting me at risk of ceasing contribution once the extrinsic motivation of the Building Successful Online Communities course is removed.

My experience editing on Wikipedia surfaced multiple strategies the site could employ in order to attract new editors to the site: countering its reputation for errors and frivolity, especially in the U.S. K-12 education system; making the ability to correct errors or contribute expertise more prominent in site design; and promoting spaces for interaction and the activity of editors to provide evidence of an active community. Notably, only the first of these tactics would involve any sort of communication external to the Wikipedia website. This is largely because, as one of the most highly trafficked websites in the world, millions of potential editors visit the site each day.

To establish a new reputation for Wikipedia as a starting point for basic research and further fact-finding, the Wikimedia Foundation should consider partnerships with U.S. K-12 educational institutions similar to its work in Morocco, Bolivia, and the Philippines, as well as the engagement of leaders in higher education through Wiki Education. This type of initiative would recruit new editors from diverse backgrounds while bringing Wikipedia into classrooms where it has previously been seen as the antithesis to sound research. Additionally, these teachers’ and students’ firsthand experience with Wikipedia would likely supplant any preconceived notions about the site.

There are many potential design options that Wikipedia could adopt to potentially increase contributions among current visitors to the site. First, Wikipedia might design more prompts for visitors to edit articles, such as additional maintenance template messages that ask visitors to make contributions to stub articles and other similar design elements that note the ability to correct errors. Otherwise, the edit button at the tops of pages and edit hyperlinks for each section make for weak signals to contribute. Additionally, Wikipedia might promote becoming an editor as a way to help alongside calls for donations during fundraising campaigns. These messages could include descriptions of who might be a good fit for editing Wikipedia and describe the type of contributions that would be most beneficial.

Wikipedia should also make the presence of its active community more salient as a form of social proof. The timestamp in the webpage footer for when an article was last edited is one piece of evidence that might be complemented by other statistics about the number of edits to or discussions about the article in a certain period or a link to a list of people who have contributed. This feature should also be highlighted in a more prominent area on the page, such as near the table of contents.

Aside solely from attracting newcomers, Wikipedia has numerous opportunities for increasing their long-term commitment to contribute, such as providing targeted edit and WikiProject recommendations based on topical interests, prominently listing high-traffic stub articles or articles in need of maintenance on WikiProjects, prompting new users to use Talk pages to view active discussions, and heavily promoting the Teahouse link to new users and on article pages.

Currently, the new user sign-up process involves an optional prompt to edit a random article in need of maintenance with a short tutorial for navigating the editing interface. Instead, this process might ask users to input some of their topical interests or expertise in order to craft recommendations to edit a certain set of articles or join a WikiProject. Similar recommendation functionality might be used after a registered or anonymous user makes an edit to an article in a certain topical category or WikiProject. This process might increase an editor’s intrinsic motivation by providing them personally interesting tasks or allowing them to use prior knowledge, as well as learn more about a subject they enjoy. After new users make significant contributions, Wikipedia might also suggest pinging highly active or volunteer editors from the relevant WikiProject on a Talk page to review the article for feedback. Furthermore, WikiProject pages might automatically populate a list of high-traffic stub articles or articles in need of maintenance to provide intrinsically motivated users an opportunity to feel as if they are doing impactful work by helping educate others. This feature has the potential to produce normative commitment.

Wikipedia should also adopt strategies to help users form affective commitment to the community by helping them find ways to communicate with other editors. One tactic might be to point new users to Talk pages when making edits, similar to the blue dots that appear near the “cite” and “link” buttons for new editors. Clicking these visual indicators could tell users about the advantages of using a Talk page while also pointing them to other spaces for conversation if there are no active discussions. Wikipedia should also promote the Teahouse community beyond links on the Community portal and random invites. Since joining Wikipedia, I have only received one personal message from a Wiki Education staffer about visiting the Teahouse; and it was only mentioned once without much description. Prompting users to participate in Talk pages and the Teahouse might increase their likelihood of forming bonds- or identity-based commitment by feeling like they are part of an active community or developing relationships with individual editors.

Wikipedia is unlike any other online community I’ve participated. It’s massive, unlike peer-learning networks I have joined. It has a purpose, unlike the most popular social media sites. And it is incredibly well-known, unlike startup attempts at peer production. It’s also incredibly complex to learn how to participate, yet studies have shown that immersive personalized tutorials do not alter the long-term commitment of new users. Rather, socialization has produced the most evidence for increasing active participation. I argue that site design that enhances the prominence of social features for new users, content discovery for motivated users, and prompts otherwise unaware site visitors with opportunities to edit are promising features that could bring more potential Wikipedians into the fold and foster long-term commitment. Combined with efforts to counter a negative image in the U.S. K-12 education system, Wikipedia has numerous opportunities available to increase its active user base.