User:Speed.z/"Polartec Big Air At Fenway" Reflection
Like most students, I have used Wikipedia for virtually every academic task I have been assigned. Yet, I never once considered joining or contributing to the community. However, once I was forced to step into this highly complex society, I was surprised by just how quickly I felt connected to it. Wikipedia is a quicksand community. Once you are sucked in, it is very easy to feel completely engrossed. However, the trick is getting to that point. Arguably the most important tactics to consider for fostering a strong community are the management of newcomers, motivation of active members, and governance/moderation. Wikipedia has its own way of addressing each aspect that I have mentioned. Some are addressed quite well and have led to the indisputable success, which Wikipedia has achieved. However, reputation is based on the past and the future is where we are heading. The only way to grow in the future is to make improvements and understand what is and is not working well.
I consider design claims discussed in Robert Kraut and Paul Resnick’s Building Successful Online Communities (2011) and compare them to my own Wikipedia experiences, with the intent of discerning how Wikipedia can continue to improve their reputation as a successful online community.
Introduction:[edit]
Jimmy Wales once said, “The core of Wikipedia is something people really believe in. That is too valuable for the world to screw up.” What is the core of Wikipedia? It is a place for people to consume and distribute reliable information freely. Simple. However, it is a much more difficult task than it may sound and relies upon the successful development of Wikipedia’s community. There are many pieces necessary to put together the puzzle of a strong community, but some of the more essential are the management of newcomers, motivation of active members, and governance/moderation. Upon my initiation into Wikipedia (three months ago), I engaged in several different tasks that allowed me to evaluate how effectively or ineffectively Wikipedia was able to put these pieces together. After comparing my personal experiences with the design claims posited by Kraut & Resnick (2011), I have developed three ways for Wikipedia to foster an even stronger community. Firstly, influencing better communal interactions will assist the management of newcomers. Secondly, highlighting the norm of reciprocity will motivate members to constantly contribute and build communal bonds. Lastly, ingraining a deep understanding of what norms exist will help moderate vandalism. Wikipedia is already the largest online encyclopedia community in existence. But, that doesn’t mean its best days should be in the past.
Thesis[edit]
Therefore, I argue, based on my experiences and Kraut & Resnick’s Building Successful Online Communities (2011), that Wikipedia can achieve even greater future success by influencing better communal interactions, highlighting normative reciprocity, and establishing a deep understanding of what norms exist.
Arguments:[edit]
Management Of Newcomers[edit]
A community that does not foster cohesion among its members is doomed to fail. Wikipedia is no exception; in fact, it is a quintessential example. Wikipedia’s interactions require mutual understanding, respect, and acceptance. Newcomers especially need to be aware of this. Kraut & Resnick explain in their Design Claim 18 of The Challenges of Dealing with Newcomers, “When newcomers have friendly interactions with existing community members soon after joining a community they are more likely to stay longer and contribute more“ (p. 208).[1] Upon my entrance into Wikipedia, Adam from the Wikimedia Foundation immediately greeted me. This made me feel as though Wikipedia wanted me to participate and would support me as I did so. However, Wikipedia could foster even better communal interactions by encouraging newcomers to step outside their comfort zone and interact with other members. According to Kraut and Resnick’s Design Claim 3 of Encouraging Commitment in Online Communities, “Providing community members with interdependent tasks increases their identity-based commitment to the community and reduces conflict among subgroups” (p. 85).[2] One class assignment required me to make edits on outside articles and spread WikiLove. This was initially intimidating because Wikipedia did not seem like a very social platform. However, once I dove into the icy water, it was actually refreshing. I edited two articles (Madhyamakālaṃkāra & United States Specialty Sports Association) and awarded a barnstar to a notable contributor, Comatmebro. It was refreshing to realize that other users did not react negatively to my involvement. In fact, they probably appreciated my contributions and complimentary actions. New members will naturally feel anxiety about first engaging in a community. However, forcing their hand a bit will allow for better communal interactions, increased identity-based commitment, and therefore a stronger community as a whole.
Polartec Big Air At Fenway | |
|---|---|
 The 140 foot big air jump inside Fenway | |
| Years active | 2016 |
| Organization | Polartec |
| Style | Big Air Competition |
| Height | 150 ft (4,572 cm) |
| Opponent(s) | Sage Kostenburg, Ty Walker, Joss Christensen |
Motivation Of Active Members[edit]
Robert Cialdini stated in The Science of Persuasion (2001), “All societies subscribe to a norm that obligates individuals to repay in kind what they have received” (p. 76). [3]People do not want to feel indebted to others. So, naturally a person that receives feels the inherent need to give as well. A community can take advantage of this to persuade people to contribute more. According to Kraut & Resnick’s Design Claim 29 & 30 of Encouraging Commitment in Online Communities, showing people what they’ve received increases commitment and establishing reciprocity as a norm promotes feelings of obligation.[4] After publishing my article, Polartec Big Air at Fenway, I surprisingly received several comments from outside Wikipedia users (such as JIIm06, Whpq, and Flyte35). I was very grateful for these contributions and did feel a certain amount of indebtedness. However, I did not realize what these members had done for me until I went looking through my history. If I were notified of these contributions, I would have at least thanked the users, made revisions on their articles, or simply contributed to the Wikipedia community as a whole. Therefore I suggest Wikipedia strongly highlight contributions received from other members to promote feelings of reciprocity and, in turn, motivate members to contribute more.
Moderation and Governance[edit]
Wikipedia is built on a foundation of trust between members. This leaves Wikipedia vulnerable to vandalism. Wikipedia has a longstanding norm of “don’t bite the newcomers”. As explained by Kraut & Resnick’s Design Claim 21 in The Challenges of Dealing with Newcomers, this norm promotes stronger group cohesion and friendly interactions (p. 210).[5] That is something that can’t be sacrificed. So, how can a community prevent vandalism without scaring off the well intentioned, but perhaps ignorant newcomers? I argue that by instilling a deep understanding of what Wikipedia norms exist, accidental vandalism will dissipate. Kraut & Resnick stated in their Design Claim 18 of Regulating Behavior in Online Communities, “Explicit rules and guidelines increase the ability for community members to know the norms, especially when it is less clear what others think is acceptable” (p. 148).[6] In one of my initial drafts of Polartec Big Air at Fenway, I accidentally editorialized some information. This is a Wikipedia norm violation, due to the fact Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view. Another member of Wikipedia brought this to my attention and, because I was orientated through Wiki Education Foundation tutorials: Editing basics & Wikipedia Essentials, I understood the comment and fixed it. However, not all members undergo the same kind of orientation that I did and are oblivious to what norms exist. That is a mistake. I argue that all newcomers should be forced to experience the same tutorial process that I was exposed to. This will create an environment where all users will have at least some basic knowledge of the existing norms on Wikipedia. As a result, there will be less accidental vandalism and Wikipedia can more efficiently pursue its goal of providing reliable information to the masses.
Conclusion:[edit]
Building a successful online community is no easy task. Wikipedia thrives because its members work together towards a common goal and thus, create a strong cohesive community. As discussed in class, there are a multitude of aspects to consider when designing an online community, but among the most crucial are the management of newcomers, motivation of active members, and governance/moderation. Through my engagement in various Wikipedia tasks over the past three months, I evaluated how effectively and ineffectively Wikipedia has put these pieces together. After assessing my personal experiences with the design claims posited by Kraut & Resnick (2011), I have determined three ways for Wikipedia to achieve even more success as a community. Firstly, influencing better communal interactions will assist the management of newcomers. Secondly, highlighting the norm of reciprocity will motivate members to constantly contribute and build communal bonds. Lastly, ingraining a deep understanding of what norms exist will help moderate vandalism. Trying to predict what the future holds is futile. So, it is difficult to say where Wikipedia will stand as a community even just five years from now. But, I argue that by incorporating these proposed suggestions it will have a much better chance at sustaining and growing its reputation as one of the most successful online communities.
Zach Speed (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Word Count: 1,500
References[edit]
- ^ Kraut, Robert; Resnick, Paul (2011). Building Successful Online Communities. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. p. 208.
- ^ Kraut, Robert; Resnick, Paul (2011). Building Successful Online Communities. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. p. 85.
- ^ Cialdini, Robert (2001). "The Science Of Persuasion". Scientific American: 76.
{{cite journal}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help) - ^ Kraut, Robert; Resnick, Paul (2011). Building Successful Online Communities. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. p. 104.
- ^ Kraut, Robert; Resnick, Paul (2011). Building Successful Online Communities. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. p. 210.
- ^ Kraut, Robert; Resnick, Paul (2011). Building Successful Online Communities. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. p. 148.