I signed up for this class because I had to. Not because I had any interest in Wikipedia or any other online community, but because a capstone class is required and the one I wanted to take was pulled from the schedule. I would even go so far as to say that I had zero interest in online communities, arguably because I wasn’t a part of one. That has changed now and I am now proud to say that I am a part of the Wikipedia community and have contributed to the largest online encyclopedia as well as uncovered a bit of history that the bodybuilding world has kept quiet. This essay delves into Kraut and Resnick’s Building Successful Online Communities[1] to explore whether Wikipedia should be considered a successful online community considering the extent that it is user friendly, provides social interactions, and encourages members to join and stay.
User Friendliness edit
After getting over the initial shock that I had to write a Wikipedia article for this class, I struggled to choose a topic. The list that Amanda Rust provided was picked apart and chosen from quickly by my classmates – which was fine because I knew I wouldn’t put my due effort in unless I found a topic I actually cared about. But that left the topic even more open ended than Professor Reagle’s essay prompts. Luckily Wikipedia came to the rescue: Wikipedians have compiled a list of topics that still need articles and I was able to find it and then begin narrow down my search. Kraut and Resnick mentioned this in their discussion of contribution: “making the list of needed contributions easily visible increases the likelihood that the community will provide them.[1]: 26 .” If this list had not existed or if I had not been able to find it I would have floundered. I greatly appreciated that Wikipedia helps its new (and inexperienced) users by providing this list of potential articles.
Once my topic was set in stone (approximately one month after I was supposed to choose and two days before it was supposed to go live) the process was nothing but exciting. When I wasn’t sure how to do something (italics, create a link to another Wikipedia page, etc.) it was simple to Google how to do it and I found that my page flew together in less than 36 hours. While the search bar at the top of Wikipedia is sensitive to the exact words that are being searched for and a lot of my searches proved to be fruitless, Googling what I wanted to do always brought up a very helpful, and often wordy, explanation of how to do it along with a bunch of other related things I could do. In this way, Wikipedia provides an explanation for all things imaginable to do within articles and helps its users through the beginning struggles of figuring out a site. After looking at other bodybuilder’s articles on Wikipedia, I realized I should have a table of the competitions Roy Hilligenn had competed in. The template and instructions that I found on Wikipedia helped me go from a basic paragraph about his training to adding a full table in only a few steps.
Most projects I have to do have a set of criteria: a grading rubric, a suggested word count, a certain writing style to use. Wikipedia was clearly different. There is no word count suggested, the writing style should be “neutral,” and Wikipedia editors can choose from a multitude of citation options. I was overwhelmed and felt as though Wikipedia was doing a bad job of “providing members with specific and highly challenging goals, whether self-set or system-suggested[1]: 37 " which usually "increases contributions[1]: 37 .” Then I came across the perfect article link and suddenly I had something to work with. Without that information I would have continued to struggle on what was turning into quite a troublesome project and I was very thankful Wikipedia set this goal for all articles.
Interactions edit
Online communities can provide social support and interactions if you find the right one. These online interactions can make or break a member’s experience on the online community and can be the difference in whether or not the member decides to stay with the community. Wikipedia is an example of an online community that can provide lots of interactions with other members and as Kraut and Resnick (2011) discuss “combining contribution with social contact with other contributors causes members to contribute more[1]: 43 .” When starting out I was unsure how I felt about other Wikipedians being able to edit the article I was writing but as I heard about the horrors of other people’s articles getting tagged for deletion or Wikipedia wars I was suddenly very happy to have zero interactions and only my username on the edit history for the Roy Hilligenn article I was working on. But suddenly, I wasn’t the only editor… I logged in one day to make some edits and saw that someone had been making changes. And it was great! As Kraut and Resnick suggest “people will be more willing to contribute to an online community if they see that others are making complementary or contingent contributions… [1]: 66 ” and I found this was true. When I saw that other people were interested in the article I was working on and were making minor edits or putting it in categories I was excited because I finally felt like I was making a worthwhile page and helping to build on the knowledge that is open to the general public.
In the diff here, the changes that Bamyers99 made can be seen. Bamyers99 only made a few minor edits in the article and added a few categories, but even these small changes motivated me to keep working on the article because I could see that other people were interested in it. While I don’t foresee myself writing any other Wikipedia articles, I can imagine making minor changes on pages as I come across them, just as Bamyers99 did for me. The small contribution lets the person on the other side of the article know that other people are interested in helping and makes the effort they are putting in feel worthwhile.
Another aspect of interaction is how Wikipedia is moderated. Kraut and Resnick suggest that “moderation decided by people who are members of the community… is perceived as more legitimate and thus is more effective[1]: 134 .” While the page that I was working on did not have any issues such as being tagged for deletion or as an orphan, if it had been I would have approached it in thinking that the moderators are trying to make Wikipedia as good as possible, instead of believing that they were being malicious about the article. That being said, Wikipedia does have “consistently applied moderation criteria, a chance to argue one’s case, and appeal procedures increase the legitimacy and thus the effectiveness of moderation decisions[1]: 133 ” which would allow me to argue any of the tags that could have been placed on the article.
Ending edit
While my time on Wikipedia has been short, I think it is fair to say that I will continue to log in occasionally and check on the Roy Hilligenn article that I worked on this semester. While Wikipedia does not make it simple for newcomers, it is clear that there are practices in place to help anyone who is actually interested in contributing to the site. The site is not particularly user friend but it has enough information there for new members to help themselves and while it is not completely full of social support if you do your due diligence you can find the right way to create articles and other members will eventually come along and help with the article. As far as online communities go, Wikipedia is pretty average in that some aspects are great while others lack a bit. Wikipedia is one that many people know exist but few people actually get involved in and I am glad to be a part of the Wikipedia community now. Even if I do not contribute again to the encyclopedia again, I will always know that I have an account, that I can log in and make edits if I want, and that I have made a difference in the knowledge of the history of the bodybuilding world.